POLITICS - Oil Exploration

[deerwhacker444]

Well, that didn't take long...!

Today the Democrats voted on party lines and basically killed all notions of drilling for oil. The bill they killed in committee would allow for exploration and possible drilling 50-200 miles off our coast

Here's a link to the article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365627,00.html

The vote was along party lines, 9-6.

These are the Repubs who voted for the bill:

Todd Tiahrt (KS)
John E. Peterson (PA)
Jo Ann Emerson (MO)
Virgil H. Goode, Jr. (VA)
Ken Calvert (CA)
Jerry Lewis (CA)

Here is a list of the 9 Dems who are on the "Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies" who effectively stuck a knife in the back of all Americans by voting this bill down.

Norman D. Dicks (WA) Phone: (202) 225-5916
James P. Moran (VA) Phone: (202) 225-4376
Maurice D. Hinchey (NY) Phone: (202) 225-6335
John W. Olver (MA) Phone: (202) 225-5335
Alan B. Mollohan (WV) Phone: (202) 225-4172
Tom Udall (NM) Phone: (202) 225-6190
Ben Chandler (KY) Phone: (202) 225-4706
Ed Pastor (AZ) Phone: (202) 225-4065
Dave Obey (WI) Phone: (202) 225-3365

If one of these buffoons represents you in congress, I urge you to pick up the phone and give them a strong dose of "What For"..!

[bunklocoempire]

From the article: "Tapping America's huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on gasoline prices," Greg Schnacke, President of Americans for American Energy, said in a news release, adding: "With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS should be developed."

Now this is something I don't understand, strategically in a war, why would I use up my own resources when I can use up the other guys resources first? Are we worried about economic collapse or are we worried about "terror"? Isn't it our patriotic duty to buy higher priced gas and use up the muslims supply first? Or, this is just our government and the corporations they serve blowin' smoke.


Bunkloco

[Ysabel Kid]

Since the military might of this country is based in large part on the economic might, and our economy is based on energy, it is in our best interest to pursue the lowest cost energy sources wherever they may be. Conversely, us buying oil and natural gas from countries which sponsor terrorism only enables them to send more money to these nefarious creatures.

Let's see - we won't drill 200 miles off our coast - which is outside our territorial waters, but China will - not off their coast but off ours. Congress - and specifically the Dem's - are blooming idiots.

The left is connected at the hip with the radical environmental movement. They want to see gas prices continue to rise until we get to the point where most people don't drive. We are not there yet. So, the Dem's aren't going to do anything that actually helps the people of this country if it goes against their lunatic environmental voting block. It also helps them as more and more people in a worsening economy will have to feed from the public trough, instantly generating more and more Dem voters and more and more socialism.

Politically, it is against the modern Democrat Party's self-preservation (and lust for power) interests to do anything that will reduce the price of gasoline, help the economy, help manufacturing, or strengthen this country. Their votes over the last 40 years prove this conclusively.

We need to attack this problem from both sides - supply and demand. Increase supply RIGHT NOW! Tap into our proven reserves; start building a lot of nuclear plants; build and update refineries. Take the same effort as we did to get a man on the moon within a decade to become energy independent in less time. World-class efforts on alternative energy generation. World-class efforts on energy conservation - that makes us more efficient but does not reduce our standard of living. We can hit all the angles at once, but instead of doing so, Congress is content with partisan bickering.

We need to fire them ALL! I did my part this week in the primary (non-Presidential) for SC. I voted against every incumbant!!!

[Peter M. Eick]

Why do they want us to produce more oil?

They don't.

They want to save the planet by reducing the CO2 output and greenhouse gases. Since they cannot get congress to legislate kyoto, they are achieving it by not letting us drill to produce it.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[tman]

i'm going to dive off the deep end here, and go into the conspiraciary nut case realm. NO ENVIRONMENT LOBBIES HAVE THE POWER TO WRECK THIS COUNTRIES ECONOMY. i never bought that excuse. the tree hugger illussion, is funded by the oil companies who donot want to drill or build refineries. those same oil companies on their own, shut down their refinieries and curtailed exploration in order to create what we have now. why drill ,refine, and explore when you can make a killing , while holding the u.s. economy hostage. nope, crazy old tman don't buy into their lies nomore.

[Ysabel Kid]

Why do they want us to produce more oil?

They don't.

They want to save the planet by reducing the CO2 output and greenhouse gases. Since they cannot get congress to legislate kyoto, they are achieving it by not letting us drill to produce it.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Except this is not a way to "save the planet". First, man-made global warming due to CO2 emissions is, despite what Gore and the MSM says, not a resolved scienitific fact. Far from it. The temperature of the earth as well as the relative CO2 content in the atomsphere has varied naturally for millions and billions of years. The largest impact on both comes from the Sun - which last time I check, was not impacted by man's industrial production nor penchant for driving.

The environment is indeed impacted locally by man. So the question becomes, what kind of economic system best protects the environment, and what kind has historically been the worst or hardest on the environment. That answer is simple as well - free-market capitalism, which has a value for both land and natural resources, protects both and renews both where it can (such as forestry). Centrally-planned economies - such as the old Soviet system neither protect the environment nor the workers or people living nearby. The worse industrial messes globally have all been from abuses of land and natural resources in these socialist and/or communist countries. History has born this out. So, hurting our economy and shifting to more centralized control is exactly opposite of what would be best for the environment - but exactly what leftist want. The environment is just a helpful excuse, that will be tossed away as soon as it is no longer needed.

i'm going to dive off the deep end here, and go into the conspiraciary nut case realm. NO ENVIRONMENT LOBBIES HAVE THE POWER TO WRECK THIS COUNTRIES ECONOMY. i never bought that excuse. the tree hugger illussion, is funded by the oil companies who donot want to drill or build refineries. those same oil companies on their own, shut down their refinieries and curtailed exploration in order to create what we have now. why drill ,refine, and explore when you can make a killing , while holding the u.s. economy hostage. nope, crazy old tman don't buy into their lies nomore.

Only one problem with your logic - the oil companies aren't making a killing - OPEC is. The oil companies indeed have record profits - but it is on volume, due to the demand out of China and India, along with sustained demand out of North America and Europe. Their margin is only 8-10%; hardly a "windfall", nor enough to keep most companies in business. Oil is the classic "low margin/high volume" business model, so it would be in their best interest to explore, drill, retrieve and refine more of it. This is why they beg Congress to allow them to do just that. Those companies did not shut down refineries (other than non-economical ones - just like any other business would do) or curtail exploration of their own accord - environmental groups forced them through litigation and legislation passed by economically-illiterate legislators at local, state and federal levels.

History and economics fellas. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Sorry to bust your bubbles...

[Grizz]

Here's another inconvenient truth:

Q: what do plants breath?
oxygen?
nitrogen?

A: plants breath carbon dioxide.
cutting back on CO2 is suffocating plants.

So all the carbon nazis want to destroy plant life.

Q: what do plants contribute to us?
nitrogen? yes
oxygen? yes

A: plants create the oxygen we breath
if we suffocate them, they will suffocate us.

think about it

on the one hand the greenhacks whine about cutting the rain forest
and on the other hand they complain about the gas we liberate
that keeps the rain forest alive.

dump the incumbents, they have less sense of a flock of geese.

[bunklocoempire]

i'm going to dive off the deep end here, and go into the conspiraciary nut case realm. NO ENVIRONMENT LOBBIES HAVE THE POWER TO WRECK THIS COUNTRIES ECONOMY. i never bought that excuse. the tree hugger illussion, is funded by the oil companies who donot want to drill or build refineries. those same oil companies on their own, shut down their refinieries and curtailed exploration in order to create what we have now. why drill ,refine, and explore when you can make a killing , while holding the u.s. economy hostage. nope, crazy old tman don't buy into their lies nomore.

Here, you can borrow my tri-cornered tin foil hat.

Here's the money people (25 0f 2000), with most having interests (shares) in each others corporations, most having ownership or an interest in the Federal Reserve (private banks).

Simply look up the major holders of stock on a market watch/get quote site, you'll be amazed. Interesting also how Bush and Clintons rubbed elbows with these folks, past and present.

You can take it further and compare the owners of stock in the mainstream media with the other stocks they own. No conspiracy, just follow the money.

"It's not personal, it's just business."



From Forbes
Special Report
The Global 2000
04.02.08, 6:00 PM ET

Rank Company Country Industry Sales ($bil) Profits ($bil) Assets ($bil) Market Value ($bil)
1 HSBC Holdings United Kingdom Banking 146.50 19.13 2,348.98 180.81
2 General Electric United States Conglomerates 172.74 22.21 795.34 330.93
3 Bank of America United States Banking 119.19 14.98 1,715.75 176.53
4 JPMorgan Chase United States Banking 116.35 15.37 1,562.15 136.88
5 ExxonMobil United States Oil & Gas Operations 358.60 40.61 242.08 465.51
6 Royal Dutch Shell Netherlands Oil & Gas Operations 355.78 31.33 266.22 221.09
7 BP United Kingdom Oil & Gas Operations 281.03 20.60 236.08 204.94
8 Toyota Motor Japan Consumer Durables 203.80 13.99 276.38 175.08
9 ING Group Netherlands Insurance 197.93 12.65 1,932.15 75.78
10 Berkshire Hathaway United States Diversified Financials 118.25 13.21 273.16 216.65
10 Royal Bank of Scotland United Kingdom Banking 108.45 14.62 3,807.51 76.64
12 AT&T United States Telecommunications Services 118.93 11.95 275.64 210.22
13 BNP Paribas France Banking 116.16 10.71 2,494.41 81.90
14 Allianz Germany Insurance 139.12 10.90 1,547.48 80.30
15 Total France Oil & Gas Operations 199.74 19.24 165.75 181.80
16 Wal-Mart Stores United States Retailing 378.80 12.73 163.38 198.60
17 Chevron United States Oil & Gas Operations 203.97 18.69 148.79 179.97
18 American Intl Group United States Insurance 110.06 6.20 1,060.51 118.20
19 Gazprom Russia Oil & Gas Operations 81.76 23.30 201.72 306.79
20 AXA Group France Insurance 151.70 7.75 1,064.67 70.33
21 Banco Santander Spain Banking 72.26 10.02 1,332.72 113.27
22 ConocoPhillips United States Oil & Gas Operations 171.50 11.89 177.76 129.15
23 Goldman Sachs Group United States Diversified Financials 87.97 11.60 1,119.80 67.16
24 Citigroup United States Banking 159.23 3.62 2,187.63 123.44
25 Barclays United Kingdom Banking 79.70 8.76 2,432.34 62.43

Here's an article from the only republican candidate to speak ill of the Federal Reserve. http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/8342#SlideFrame_1

You may also be interested that this Patriot warned of the "gas crisis" back in 2005. (and other economic warnings earlier than this, back when there was a republican majority.)
"What can Congress do to provide Americans with some relief at the pump? First it can suspend federal gas taxes, which would save consumers nearly 20 cents per gallon. In the long term, Congress must pass legislation like HR 4004, which I introduced earlier this month. HR 4004 takes a comprehensive approach by allowing offshore drilling, eliminating regulations that restrict refining, and suspending harmful tax rules that discourage domestic oil production. If we hope to have a stable, affordable supply of gas, we must allow the free market to operate."

And again in 2007 with his proposed "Affordable Gas Act." (from 2008)
"Last year, in order to provide the American people with relief from high oil prices, I introduced the Affordable Gas Price Act (H.R. 2415). This legislation protects the American people from gas price spikes by suspending the federal gas tax whenever the national average gas price exceeds $3.00 per gallon. The Affordable Gas Price Act also expands the supply of gasoline by repealing the federal moratorium on offshore drilling, including in the ANWR reserve in Alaska . HR 2415 also provides tax incentives and protection from nuisance lawsuits for those seeking to build new refineries. Finally, HR 2415 authorizes a federal study on the link between our nation’s monetary policy and the price of oil.

Just for fun, an article about the carbon credit scheme, read the article and compare the corporations to gain from this with the Forbes 2000 list. Denounced by repubs, until they realized the money to be made. Pelosi and Newt sitting on their couch, coming together and asking for our help.
http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/a ... &num=19806

There is no conspiracy because no ones plans to break any laws, laws are made conveniantly to accomodate this behavior (Federal Reserve) and your good to go. And if none realize who the dems and
repubs answer to, or the balance of power shifted through the Federal Reserve even better.


Bunkloco

[FWiedner]

In the feeding frenzy to increase the taxes on oil companies in order to get revenge for their profitability and the high cost of petroleum related products, and after congressional threats to nationalize the industry in the United States, ExxonMobile has decided to get out of the gasoline distibution business and plans to sell all 2200 of it's gas stations in the U.S.

Their reason? They can't compete with WalMart.

Another profitable industry driven out operation in the U.S.A. Oh, they'll still be in business, but they are takin' it elsewhere.

[scr83jp]

I contacted Senator Feinstein about drilling in the 2000 acres of ANWR & along the continental shelf for our survival as a nation but of course she's opposed to it stating she wants alternative fuels.The problem is this can't happen over night & should have been implimented starting in 1973 when opec raised oil prices.China & Cuba are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico 50 miles from the USA.I fault Bush for not using his executive power ordering massive oil exploration throughout our country to us free from the OPEC stranglehold like the best President in my lifetime Ronald Reagon did.

[Ysabel Kid]

Agreed - though most of the political fault lies with the Democrats, the Republicans are also to blame. One side focuses solely on reducing demand. The other focuses solely on increasing supply. Both approaches need to be taken. In short, we need:

(1) Increase exploration and recovery in our own country (ANWR, shale, continental shelf) of proven reserves of oil and natural gas - the most efficient fossil fuels know to date;

(2) Increase refining capacity here of these fossil fuels;

(3) Build new nuclear reactors nationwide with a goal towards 75% of our electrical grid production being powered by nuclear reactors;

(4) Continue investments and growth of clean-burning coal technology (hopefully fulfilling the other 25% short term);

(5) Continue world-class R&D into alternative energy sources - while acknowledging that none offer any immediate relief for the crisis we are in today (this is a long-term solution);

(6) Continue world-class R&D into energy conservation technologies - getting more out of fewer resources - without asking Americans to reduce their standard of living, pay more for "green technology", or destroy our economy.

All of these can be done simultaneously - and need to be done immediately. Other through a robust, vibrant and growing free market based capitalistic economy can we simultaneously protect the environment and achieve break-throughs in energy generation and use. No other system will yield these results - but they will destroy our ability to achieve these lofty goals, reduce our standard of living (as well as the standards of billions of people globally), and destroy the environment.

[Ysabel Kid]

Oh, and taxing oil companies for "windfall profits"? First, that idiocy has been tried before - here and elsewhere - and has never worked. Second, who are the "oil companies"? Shareholders - many millions of common citizens who's retirement investments include oil company stocks. Adding a tax may feel good to the economically-illiterate masses - and make the leftist absolutely giddy - but these costs will be passed directly onto the consumers of gasoline with higher prices - and/or reductions in the value of company's stock, hurting those same millions with retirement investments.

As President Reagan said, the most feared words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I am here to help". I - and the rest of this country - could sure use a lot less "help" from these nitwits!!!

[Grizz]

We don't need no stinkin' oil exploration. We have enough proven energy reserves to run our country for a couple hundred years. We just need to get rid of the obstacles to that: the dirty rotten parasites in DC.

VOTE 'EM OUT, THEY'RE CORRUPT, THEY'RE COMMIES, GET RID OF THEM.

[Peter M. Eick]

Grizz,

I agree with your government conclusion but we still need exploration. I work for one of those companies listed above in the exploration department so I have a fair amount of direct knowledge.

The issue is what is called the decline curve. Once you start producing a field after discovery, the rate of production steadily drops. A really big field with really good management may only drop like 1% per year. For example one of the Gulf of Mexico water drive sand reservoirs. Nasty fields toward the end of their life drop like 7% per year. Think most fields onshore US. Thus if we do no exploration our fields will decline at optimistically 3% per year and more likely around 5% per year as a country. This is why we need to constantly drill, explore and continue to bring on new production.

The key problem we face is red tape from the government and environmental regulations. Right now I am delayed on a project due to Sage Grouse. The buffalo office of the BLM just shut down the powder river basin for all practical purposes. If you are curious. here is a link:

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/b ... rouse.html

This type of long term shut down may propagate around the intermountain west and then exploration though the west will grind to a halt for a few years. This is what we deal with in exploration a lot lately. While the environment is critical (I personally have earned awards for environmental stewardship from the BLM and my company), I think the average folk don't understand the oil industries problems and why we cannot get things done.

[Grizz]

Peter, thanks for that info, I obviously was short sighted and I understand your point. I wish we could get a REAL HONEST TO AMERICA VOTER REBELLION going somehow.

What in the world will it take to light a spark under the "ELECTORATE" ?

I am frustrated to exhasperation with the corruption of our government, and their stupidity.
Like the lady on t.v. said, "they don't have the sense of a flock of geese."
The more I think about that, the more true it sounds.

Our country is being destroyed by a flock that is stupider than geese.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGGGGGK

[ole pizen slinger]

Peter,
As one in the industry I would like to ask a question. I have been giving my Congressman quite a bit of flack about the energy situation in this country. I am told that we do not need more places to drill--that the oil companies already have 68,000,000 acres in which to drill now. Explain to me the need for drilling in ANWR, off the West and East Coasts and in the Gulf if oil companies already have sufficient places to drill at present. I need answers so I can rebute their double talk when I contact them. Also, how much money does it cost to drill a 12 inch, 35,000 ft deep well?
ole pizen slinger

[Slick]

YUP!!! That's why I've re-directed the bulk of my 401k/457DCP funds into "foreign investments" - that DO PRECISELY THAT! Put a portion of your money into Chinese growth funds and see what happens – then you’ll know where to invest the rest!

Let the environmental lib-tards “fall” on their swords. They caused the problems we now face – let them suffer in the wake and let their young falter – never to carry on the values that so very nearly ruined this great nation.

I do have to admit that I’ve been an “investment traitor” since mid 2006, and I have NO regrets… Thank god I worked for the govt and was able to cast my 401K/457DCPdollars (even though they weren’t matched) wherever I thought best..

So do it NOW – invest in off-shore oil exploration off the coast of the USA! (even if your own country won’t).

[KWK]

Explain to me the need for drilling in ANWR, off the West and East Coasts and in the Gulf if oil companies already have sufficient places to drill at present.

The Democrats are throwing up smoke to justify their attempts to grab oil company profits and then dole this out to politically favored causes.

This morning's Wall Street Journal notes:

The industry and its backers say such arguments reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the oil industry. Companies don't know how much oil is under the lands they lease, so they buy up large swaths in the hope that a fraction will work out. Much of the area that isn't producing, they say, doesn't have oil or gas in commercially viable quantities.

Moreover, bringing a new field into production can require years of mapping, testing, drilling and construction -- during which time the land would show up in statistics as being "not in production," even as companies spend millions or even billions of dollars to bring it online.

...

Even if the lands are opened to drilling, however, most experts don't expect immediate relief from high prices. The more-accessible reserves off the coasts of California and Florida would take several years to bring into production, and the remote Arctic refuge would take a decade or more. Even once those fields did come online, their impact on prices would likely be limited. The largest field in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is believed to contain about 1.4 billion barrels of oil -- roughly half what Saudi Arabia exports in a single year.

[Ysabel Kid]

The Democrats know darn well that hitting "big oil" with "windfall taxes" does nothing to reduce the price of gasoline the average American will pay. It makes them look good ("slapping evil corporations"), and gives them money to play with as KWK noted. The Dem's learned a very long time ago that the secret to political success was taking money from the few and spreading it to the many - it's called vote buying. They also learned that the attention span of most Americans is such that they won't figure this out (helps when the left also controls public education), and that symbolism is often more important than results to these same Americans.

By the way, I do not work for an oil company.

I do work for an American manufacturing company, so see what the results are, first hand, of our countries lack of a national energy policy, ridiculous tort system, and smothering regulatory environment.

Last week a barrel of crude bounced around the $135 mark. One of the senior VP's at the company I work for, during a presentation to my largest customer, noted that Gazprom (the Russian oil giant) pegged the price of crude at year end this year at $250 barrel. I hope they are wrong, but I don't see any reason other than hope for them not to be right. If you think gas price is bad now, just hold onto your hats...

[Grizz]

Even if the lands are opened to drilling, however, most experts don't expect immediate relief from high prices. The more-accessible reserves off the coasts of California and Florida would take several years to bring into production, and the remote Arctic refuge would take a decade or more. Even once those fields did come online, their impact on prices would likely be limited. The largest field in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is believed to contain about 1.4 billion barrels of oil -- roughly half what Saudi Arabia exports in a single year.

I hate getting stuff from "most experts". First, I believe this quote is lying about the amount of oil available in anwr. Second, there are lots more reserves available in Alaska and on our outer continental shelf.

And most importantly, this is completely OFF-BASE with respect to the market reaction to more U.S. oil production. ESPECIALLY if this is coupled with a national energy policy that backs up America. Whoever wrote this KNOWS NOTHING of how markets operate. The oil producers that are getting these high prices would start dumping oil on the market and lowering their offers IMMEDIATELY in a defensive attempt to get the oil prices down to make our procuction more expensive in a cost/benefits sense.

At the current price of oil every conceivable energy source is profitable.

But wait, there's more. Not only would the producers react to preserve their market share, but producing our own oil would immediately strengthen the U.S. dollar. This will have the further effect of lowering oil costs, but it will also have the most immediate effect at the gas pump. This is because the dollar is now on the "oil standard" as opposed to the "gold standard".

Furthermore, all capital wealth COMES FROM RESOURCE EXTRACTION. The rest of the economy, the "value added" part, is simply piggy-backed on the extracted resources.

Want a little convincing? Can you spell Afghanistan? (I don't think I can) What is their stock in trade? Poppies. It's the only cash crop they have. They have nothing else of value to sell to anyone anywhere. They have no oil industry. No timber industry. No farm industry, except for heroin, which we are torching. They have no steel industry. No coal industry. No mining. No fishing. AND NO AMBITION.

WITHOUT RESOURCE EXTRACTION THERE IS NO WEALTH

This is what the commiecrats are blind about and cannot understand. They are stupid. They are so stupid that they don't understand what wealth is and where it comes from. They've been stealing from the electorate for so long that they think it's the basis of the economy. They are wrong, but they are destroying our wealth base with their stupidity.

The only hope for change, (get it, Hope, Change?) is to GET RID OF THE INCUMBENTS and get rid of the overclass and get their heads out of their butts before it's too late.

[KWK]

Japan has just about zip natural resources--some fish and trees and a little farmland for the most part--yet it's also one of the wealthier countries on the planet. Take away skilled labor and advanced machinery, and even the US is worth fairly little, for the ag industry is a fairly small portion of GDP. Humans and their machines are the principle engines of wealth, not natural resources. A quick look at the GDP breakdown of the US economy shows this.

True: natural resources are one of the factors in creating wealth, and when an important resource is scarce, it's owners can claim a larger share of the pie, such as the Saudis and Russians are doing right now. Labor, knowledge, and machinery are also essential. Labor was short in the decades after WW-II. Machinery was short over the last decade as world labor markets opened to capitalism. Now oil is somewhat short. The economy adjusts in time.

Unless a natural resource is in short supply, it's price drops to the labor required to extract it and little more. When it is short, its price rises to what it takes to replace it. Unfortunately for us, there's no good replacement for oil, so the price will skyrocket. So it goes; it's been fun while it lasted.

[Grizz]

Sorry, that's a which came first approach, with the same flaw. Did the machinery come before the iron ore was mined? Did they build car factories and then buy steel? Without the steel industry they wouldn't have a car industry. Steel comes from iron ore; resource extraction. The japanese purchase their materials and supplies. However if no one ships materials to them they will be as poor as Cuba, for the same reason. You have the ambition and industriousness of the Japanese people, combined with the raw materials for their industries. No matter that they don't mine them locally.

But it does help clarify my point about how bullish our economy would be in terms of real wealth if we were harvesting the energy resources available to us locally.

Your theory is a basic and common misunderstanding of what an economy is and how it functions.

I'm willing to bet a donut that you cannot name a culture, civilization, or society that exists with any sort of standard of living above a rat that doesn't depend on resource extraction to survive. Starting with food, which is also resource extraction. The surplus quantities of which form the basis of every rudimentary economy. Economic power houses didn't start with cavemen sitting around building lathes and milling machines in their spare time.

Grizz

[Peter M. Eick]

The question was raised as to why we have so much land under lease that is not developed.

Its pretty simple. The time it takes to get a permit and drill the well.

Lets start offshore rank exploration first. Say you get your lease. Now you want to really make sure your prospect is there prior to drilling so you need to go shoot a seismic survey and process it. Now you have a 3 mile by 3 mile OCS block in the gulf. To properly image that it will take at least a 9 mile by 9 mile grid or 81 squares. Most surveys are bigger then that because it is hard to find that prospect right in the center so say you shoot a small survey. My smallest was 320 squares as I remember it in the gulf. By the way, that is what I do for a supergiant oil company, I design contract and collect the data that others use to drill the wells. So now you need to contract and tender the work, so say that takes 6 months to get the data. Now you process it and interpret it. Processing is another 6 months (1 year burned up now). Figure a year to interpret, budget and peer review it for drilling (2 years now burned up). Now you bid for a rig and figure another 6 months to get in the queue for drilling. Drill it and test it by the end of year 3. Ok, its a good discovery, you need to get a platform constructed and hauled out there to get it online. Figure another 2 years just for that. So from the time you start the process till you get oil if you are lucky say 5 years.

Lets talk onshore rank exploration. Lets say you want to shoot some seismic and maybe drill a well on some nice federal land somewhere like say powder river basin. Lets just hit the permit situation from the feds. It would probably just be easier to list the permits:
1) Have you permitted the surface owner or lessor? Figure 6 months What about the other mineral owners? (anther 6 months)
2) Have you done your NEPA study? Maybe a year or two
3) Have you got your SHPBO permit? (State historic preservation society) maybe 6 months.
4) Any raptors, T&E species in the area? If so add a year for a biological and T&E (threatened and endangered species) study
5) Any fossils? Get a paleo onboard for a paleo study of maybe 6 months.
6) Have you got your EIS in place? 3 to 5 years if they like you
7) Any enviro's out there trying to stop you? Skys the limit on how much grief they can do
Got any sage grouse? They can slow you up a full season.
9) Have you got your Arch work done? Add another year.

As you can see the process to get the data, permit the land and drill the well can take many years. Also some of these steps have to be repeated several times. For example the Arch work is a killer. I once Arch-ed (archeological study) the land once for the 2D, once for roads, once for the 3D and then they had to do it again for the wells. Or I have paid to have Bio's stare at empty Eagle nests because the Eagle moved down to be by our drill rig but the agency involved could not report that the Eagle was not bothered by the rig, so the Bio had to watch the empty nest to make sure we did not disturb "eagle". Fortunately the guy understood it was a job and that "eagle" was never distrurbed. I can tell you many more stories about the crazy things that go on, but whats the point. These things just add time.

The short answer is when I was in exploration as an interpreter (guy who finds prospects to drill) we figured 3 to 5 years best case from buy the land to spud the well. Now it is longer.

So why do we have so much acreage? Because it is in every one of those steps in some fashion or another. We don't buy land for the fun of it because it is expensive and you have to pay rentals and taxes. We buy land because we want to drill on it. Some is ram pasture we need to protect the prospect, but most of it is bought to tie up a play so we can drill wells.

My final comment regards ANWR. I worked ANWR from 90 to 97 and was full time on it from 90 to 94. I have prospects in ANWR I want to see drilled today. I am very confident that there is a lot of oil in ANWR and the gov just won't let us at it. But even back in 97, when I last updated my model for production, I figured 5 years to first oil from date of lease.

[KWK]

Peter, optimists claim the US has oil reserves sufficient for 200 years at the current consumption rates, if only we'd drill for it. That means we must more than triple our current output and then sustain that for 200 years. What do you think the odds are there's that much oil under US territory?

Karl

[oldmax]

Lot's of words, Anyone contact there Reps in Congress

[Grizz]

Lot's of words, Anyone contact there Reps in Congress

The senate number is 800-417-7666

The white house is 202-456-1111

give 'em what for

[Peter M. Eick]

My opinion of the oil resource is there is lots of oil but due to regulations and restrictions we cannot get at it.

Now, 200 years in the future with our current lifestyle? That is hard for me to believe. Right now I am just happy to say that it will last my lifetime and I foresee actually being able to retire from the oil industry someday. 5 years ago I figured layoffs were my only way out. I am more thinking my lifetime and my children's but not much beyond that.

The reason is simple. Oil is useful of many things. We burn it as a fuel because we have so much of the junk that it is cheap. Now it has gotten more expensive so we have to decide do we want to burn it in our cars or have plastics and computers made of plastic?

Do you want to spend $4 a gallon and save ANWR as the pristine wilderness that no one but oil company workers like me will ever see?
What about if gas was $10 a gallon? Or say $20? Would you still burn it in your car if it costs a dollar to go a mile?

This to me is the key. We will transition from using crude to make gas to burn in our cars to crude to make plastics, medicines fertilizers etc.

Think back to the whale oil prior to rock oil (crude). We stopped using whale oil because it got expensive and we found rock oil. Why did we switch from horses to cars? Cars made more sense with cheap fuel. Why will we give up gas cars and go electrics or hybrids? It is cheaper.

This is how the oil economy will last 200 years. We will start using oil for more important things then just to get from point A to point B.

[Ysabel Kid]

I work for one of those companies that takes crude oil and natural gas, and converts it into the chemicals that make everything you enjoy in life possible. You wake up covered by sheets, wearing pj's, and changing into clothing made possible by modern chemistry. They are clean due to modern chemistry. You shave, shower and for the ladies, put on your make-up - all modern chemistry. You eat your meals - all enhanced through modern chemistry (not that they all have chemicals in them, but at some point in the processing, packaging, and delivery, chemicals were involved). Your work - whatever you do - is touched by chemistry. You drive in automobiles that are basically chemicals glued together - using chemicals to run. Your TV and computer - along with much else you touch in a day - modern plastics - based on petro-chemicals, like many other things from food, nutrition, personal care, pharmaceuticals, building materials, etc., etc., etc. - all made possible by modern chemistry.

The company I work for uses, on a daily basis, the equivalent of the total oil output that Venezuela produces each day. Our costs in the first quarter went up 42% on hydrocarbons and energy. Back in 2002 we spent $8B (yes, "b" as in "billion") annually on H&E - both to run our global facilities as well as the major raw material feedstock for the products we produce. We are on track this year to spent that every quarter - ending the year at $32B, up from $24.5B last year. We are now in the process of passing these costs - which we can not absorb - on to our customers. They will hopefully pass them on down the channel to the eventual products used by consumers. If you thought gas and food prices were skyrocketing, tighten your belts, because you "ain't seen nothing yet". This is the only way companies will survive - and the manufacturing and jobs will survive. Congress may eventually, when millions of Americans are screaming bloody murder - do something, but even then it will take years to implement. The best thing all of us can do to avoid a drastic reduction in our economy and our standard of living is to contact Washington - today and every day between now and the election - and tell our representatives that anyone who votes to restrict supply will not get our votes this fall. Tell all your friends, neighbors, co-workers and acquaintences. Start a movement - "throw out the bums not working to bring us to energy independence NOW". Our country can not wait...

[Grizz]

There are 2 bills that need action TODAY

one is by rep Peterson from PA
a bill to allow drilling on our outer continental shelf
the dems are the ones who caused this price problem
the dems are the ones who continue to starve America

the other is by rep Chris Cannon from UT
a bill to allow conversion of oil shales into petroleum
this is proven technology, the Canadians are doing it
and producing a lot of energy from their oil sands.
Cannon stated that the amount of energy we can produce
from our own resources makes the saud reserves shrink
to insignificance. whatever.

also Bush is on the verge of calling for drilling the OCS.
we are the only nation in the world that isn't harvesting
our offshore oil properly. we are being starved into
poverty by the dems. THE GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM

want to do some good? the phone numbers are below. feel free to drop a dime on 'em...

remember, the action is TODAY

http://dollargas.us/

[Grizz]

OK Grizz, I'll see ya and raise you one iota of information. This article more or less PROVES THAT THE POLITICIANS ARE LYING SCUMBAGS, except for a couple of good guys.....

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/ ... times.html

[KWK]

The Shell process (cited in the article) is covered in the Wikipedia article on oil shale. They include numbers for the electrical input required. One can calculate that to meet current US petroleum consumption would require about 180 very large nuclear reactors, that or you burn a big chunk of the output. That's about double the current nuclear output. In the end, even the oil shale reserves can meet US petroleum demand for under 100 years. Given the massive effort required, I'd rather see something cleaner explored, say breeder reactors and electric cars.

[Grizz]

The Shell process (cited in the article) is covered in the Wikipedia article on oil shale. They include numbers for the electrical input required. One can calculate that to meet current US petroleum consumption would require about 180 very large nuclear reactors, that or you burn a big chunk of the output. That's about double the current nuclear output. In the end, even the oil shale reserves can meet US petroleum demand for under 100 years. Given the massive effort required, I'd rather see something cleaner explored, say breeder reactors and electric cars.

anybody can write anything in wikipedia, just like here. there's no more reason to take their word for it than there is to take mine or yours.

however, the study I cited made no such absurd statement about the amount of electricity you stated.

and second, the Germans used the very same system during WWII to make their petroleum products. you know, BEFORE NUCLEAR ENERGY. being well read is its own reward.

It's still a partially free country. if you want an electric car, what's stopping you? I don't mine what you drive, and I expect the same courtesy from you.

[Ysabel Kid]

sigh...

The point is, why not do BOTH. Why must it be an "either - or" situation? Why can't we retrieve proven reserves while we increase nuclear electrical generation, hydro-electric generation, windfarms, clean-burning coal, etc.? Why can't we pursue more efficient and safer electric cars while extracting our own natural resources?

[KWK]

anybody can write anything in wikipedia, just like here. there's no more reason to take their word for it than there is to take mine or yours.

True, but I checked that the numbers were reasonable. The stated electric production is less than 15% of the output. Given that they plan to heat cubic miles of earth "to between 550 and 750 F for a period of several years" (those are Shell's own words--follow the Wikipedia link to the paper Shell filed with the BLM), 15% seems, if anything, optimistic.

however, the study I cited made no such absurd statement about the amount of electricity you stated.

Which is why I pointed out the enormous effort required to extract the stuff.

the Germans used the very same system during WWII to make their petroleum products. you know, BEFORE NUCLEAR ENERGY.

No, they thermally broke down coal and recombined the products to make hydrocarbons similar to those from petroleum. The Shell oil shale process uses electric heat to free the oil in the shale. This is then refined, similar to oil.

The Shell process uses electric heaters. I used nuclear plants to give a scale of the amount of juice required. Obviously, one could use some of the oil liberated to make that juice. Shell estimates at least 20% of that extracted is needed to keep the process going.

being well read is its own reward.

Reading is half the process. Comprehension is the other.

[Grizz]

Reading is half the process. Comprehension is the other.

let us know when you get it. The point isn't that it takes electricity for the shell process, the point is that there is a more than ample energy supply for the taking. and as you observed, the Germans had a process for obtaining the energy from coal. There are processes that obtain oil from shale also.
There are processes that obtain oil from sands. Canada has a big boom in their resource extraction and it's benefiting them.

the point is not HOW YOU GET IT. the point is THAT IT'S THERE TO GET.

One time I was fishing alone on a troll drag outside a harbor. There was one boat sitting in the harbor that refused to come out and fish. He noted correctly that there was only one boat on the drag and stated that it was not worth his time to pull the anchor just to ride around and not catch fish. He just got drunk.

I got one of the best days of trolling I had up until that time. I could not keep the fish off the gear. I was literally making money hand over fist.
The expert, who knew the story from his anchored boat, reminds me of you. Naysaying is one of the least profitable pasttimes in the world. Doing the impossible is commonplace for winners.

[KWK]

Naysaying is one of the least profitable pasttimes in the world.

Now, just who is the naysayer? I only suggested there may be better routes to energy independence. I've tried to point out that extracting oil shale is no trivial exercise, and we should consider if the same investment can provide a cleaner or longer term solution to energy.

Certainly I'm no expert on energy. I am an engineer with a calculator on his desk, and when I see claims like "oil can supply us for 200 years," I look for the needed numbers and work them out, making a rough estimate.

Oil shale is useful, and if nothing else it can supply the plastics industry for centuries. As a primary energy source, I'm not certain it is the best route. The fact the Nazis invaded Romania and North Africa suggests oil is a much better choice than other fossil fuels. Unfortunately, I just can't see there's enough oil and natural gas around to provide energy for the centuries.

The biggest concern with shale is possible effects on the atmosphere and on ground water. I'm not sold on the global warming theory; but like it or not, the atmosphere is a shared resource and its utilization will be determined in the political world; and the trends there aren't too promising.

It will take time to develop and adapt to the alternatives to oil, and I'm more concerned with the shortage of time than with the current shortages of fossil fuels.

[Grizz]

It only takes the political will to harvest our own resources. It's the American traitors who are starving our economy.

We aren't a can't do country, we are a CAN DO country. There is nothing in the technology of energy harvesting that we cannot prove and improve. Naysaying is saying nah, we can't get there from here.

Americans CAN DO absolutely whatever we put our mind to. We have led the entire world for our entire history, and an engineer with a calculator isn't a deterrant to continuing to lead.

However much we disagree, I sincerely thank you for continuing to push this topic back to the top where it should be.

[Ysabel Kid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnVVkCsw41c

Hardly recognized him without his beard!

[bunklocoempire]

Grizz wrote (a ways back):

But wait, there's more. Not only would the producers react to preserve their market share, but producing our own oil would immediately strengthen the U.S. dollar. This will have the further effect of lowering oil costs, but it will also have the most immediate effect at the gas pump. This is because the dollar is now on the "oil standard" as opposed to the "gold standard".

The sure way to strengthen the dollar would be to stop creating it out of thin air and abolish the Federal Reserve. With oil and the growing world market for demand, can we really say producing more oil in the U.S. will lower prices (in U.S.dollars). The rub comes when you think: If I can produce something in the U.S., and get the same price, or better elsewhere by accepting a stronger currency (other than the U.S. dollar), wouldn't I want to do that? *You would of course trade your unit of strong currency for a bunch of weak dollars, to pay your U.S. bills etc.. We can't Constitutionally prevent a product from being sold to a higher bidder elsewhere.

Just because someone makes a product here, doesn't mean they have to sell it here. Remember, Greenspan the ex-Fed was over in the Mid East telling the gulf states to dump the U.S. dollar in March. The Feds and powers that be are desperately trying to keep this controlled by creating and reducing inflation at the same time, the UN-Constitutional monster that was unleashed is out of their control.

And we get to pay for all the abuse that's occured over 30+ years in a very short time, we are in a huge game of catch-up.

Essentially trying to provide 30+ years of GNP right NOW, aint gonna work.

To get a taste of what the Feds are trying to keep at bay, while protecting their butts 1st, and our butts 2nd(if at all), think of this:

Your wage 30+ years ago-trying to get you through a month at todays prices-and worse. It aint pretty folks.

Drilling is important, alternative energy is important, but drilling without changing our system of fiat money or the size of our government gets us nowhere.

Bunkloco

[TomD]

"It's the American traitors who are starving our economy."

I'm not sure that is helping. Oil pricing went through a long period recently of being at or near historic lows. Now it is real high, and the status quo looks bad so all of a sudden what worked only a few years ago looks like treason.

OK flash forward. According to Fortune magazine the last barrel in, the one that sets the price cost 50 bucks to produce, but the current prices are nearly 3 times as high. I don't think our sights should be on Anwr. I'm all for drilling the hell out of Alaska, I just don't see it as the smoking gun. We have a sparsely regulated comodities market, and a bubble in oil prices. That's the fast way back down.

Also, as good as he may be otherwise, Bush has presided over the run up in prices, and he has close ties to the industry, and brought a lot of energy people with him. I think when they go, new interests will be in the white house. Bush didn't see a single thing not to like about Ken Lay when California was being gutted on electricity, and I am not sure he is any more useful on gas.

[Grizz]

We have a sparsely regulated comodities market, and a bubble in oil prices. That's the fast way back down.

It's fashionable to blame the commodities markets, but let me ask you, when oil was trading for 10$ a barrel a few years ago, why weren't those nasty markets just bidding the price up to where it is now? I mean, if the speculators really control prices, then why was the price so low?

Most folk truly don't understand commodity markets, and no politicians seem to. I watch those markets very closely and have some understanding how they work and what's good about them. The fact that the market is open and free allows risk capital to flow freely in and out of them. The only thing 'regulating' the market does is to create artificial barriers, which traders will trade around. And what do you get then? The housing bubble, aided by 'predatory lending', courtesy of the very regulated credit markets.

The government CANNOT fix open markets. It can only pervert them.

It can make it so that YOU cannot be in those markets, and so that YOU cannot profit from price swings, and so that YOU cannot hedge your energy costs with energy profits.

The worst idea in history is "something's gotta be done".

I stand by my statement. The energy crisis is the result of stupid politicians behaving stupidly. And yes, I fault Bush for not defending the dollar.

Much as folks don't like fiat currency, and I agree in part, we really do have a currency that's backed up by a commodity, and that's oil. Even though it isn't official, the dollar is on the oil standard. And I agree about the FED, it's another pile of politicians fiddling with stuff.

But if the commodities markets get nationalized, your last opportunity to make yourself independent will fly out the window.

Thanks for the comments, I like free flowing discussions as much as I like free flowing price data. That's how I know it's time to sell or time to buy. How else do you get price discovery?

Want oil prices to shoot back down? Make local energy production, including nukes, a top national priority, and the commodity prices will drop like a rock because the competitors will try to discourage that production. It's how the gurdy turns. The foreigners literally have us over a barrel, theirs. We just need to change barrels and DRILL, DRILL, PUMP, PUMP.

This doesn't mean we should just suck our reserves dry without building alternatives. Hydrogen sounds great, but I have not seen figures that indicate it's as cheap or cheaper than gas. I mean factoring in the cost of producing hydrogen generators, of producing hydrogen infrastructure, of replacing and recycling the fuel cells. It may be just like electric cars, which don't do the job of transportation that we require, and when factoring in the cost of production and disposal of the batteries and the costs of charging them work out to being more expensive than gasoline.

I believe in American ingenuity, and I believe someone is gonna hit on the right combination, IF we free up our economy by producing our own energy from every resource available. Being dependent on foreign sources for the basis of our economy is stupid. Flipping that is job #1 in my opinion.

And finally, after all these years of me harping about it, Bush and McCain are in agreement with me.

No thanks necessary, it's my duty and pleasure to steer 'em straight.

[KWK]

Geeze, a post from Grizz I feel no great need to argue with.

(Not that I agree with all the points, mind you.)

[Grizz]

Geeze, a post from Grizz I feel no great need to argue with.

(Not that I agree with all the points, mind you.)

Well, see there, we don't always not see eye-to-eye, and that's a good thing.

Grizz

[KWK]

Oh, what the heck, I'll nit-pick on one of the points, on the electric cars. I wouldn't be surprised if your summary is correct regarding the current state of the art, but American ingenuity is working on super-capacitors which would change the equation. If they could deliver a 75 mi range, most commuting needs would be met, leaving gasoline for road trips in the larger car. Perhaps they won't be able to deliver such cells, but $4/gal gasoline is spurring the effort.

Your comments on recycling of the batteries ring true, and I've wondered if solar cells will ultimately prove a failure for the same reason. I haven't seen an analysis of the full cycle for solar cells.

[oldmax]

MARKET: Implies Buying a product for use or for resale .

HEDGE FUND, Does this imply Buying a product for resale ????
I THINK NOT! It Implies a " Get Rich Quick " scheme with no regard to others...
There is NO intention to securing the product for resale. It is only the paper ( promise to buy )that has value...
Think about it, A price change does not gain any more wealth for the Final sellers of the product, Only the Holders of Paper contracts make money

And It exists because the Political power ( Both parties ) are profiting from it....

Wall street, They do what they do because we can't get to them,
There protected by GUESS WHO,,,,Our public servants,


No ,There is no way that the increase of oil prices is due to capitalism
It's due to a corrupt system motivated by Greed!!!!!

[Grizz]

MARKET: Implies Buying a product for use or for resale .

HEDGE FUND, Does this imply Buying a product for resale ????
I THINK NOT! It Implies a " Get Rich Quick " scheme with no regard to others...
There is NO intention to securing the product for resale. It is only the paper ( promise to buy )that has value...
Think about it, A price change does not gain any more wealth for the Final sellers of the product, Only the Holders of Paper contracts make money

And It exists because the Political power ( Both parties ) are profiting from it....

Wall street, They do what they do because we can't get to them,
There protected by GUESS WHO,,,,Our public servants,


No ,There is no way that the increase of oil prices is due to capitalism
It's due to a corrupt system motivated by Greed!!!!!

Sorry, this is simple commie anti-capitalism dogma.

Who said anything about hedge-funds? You have confused two things you don't understand. For one thing a hedge fund offsets, or hedges, a position in one market with a counter-position in another market. That's what hedging actually is. Lots of smart investors do it, even Grandmas in stock investing clubs.

What people who put capitol into commercial commodity markets, who are not commercials hedging their spot, or cash, positions, do is take the RISK of the market on with their venture capital. I know this sounds complicated so here's a simple example.

You raise beef for market. At the beginning of the year you don't know how the market is going to work out, maybe cattle will be a bust, maybe corn, your feedstock will be a bust. In order to make an intelligent decision on how many cattle to produce you need to know what your costs are going to be, and what cattle will be selling for when they get to market in order to know your break-even point.

So you call up your friendly local cattle futures broker and hedge your herd of cattle. YOU SELL YOUR CATTLE SHORT. If the cattle turn out to be worth a lot, your hedge is sold for breakeven if you can get it, and you cancel it as insurance. If your cattle price is below your cost, your short position is profitable and covers your spot, or cash losses. And your business survives for another.

All of that would be impossible if it were not for the speculators that TAKE THE RISK OFF OF THE RANCHER, MINER, AND FARMER, so that they can stay in business through the market cycles that they cannot predict.

And all of that works to keep the PRICES of their product at the most affordable level for the end user UNTIL the government interferes. As with corn based ethanol. One of the STUPIDEST things imaginable, using food for fuel. Which by the way raises the cost of the beef producers, which ups their costs which makes your beef AND your corn cost MORE in the grocery store.

And this simple little example is what the commies don't tell you. It's what they themselves don't understand. And it's why communism has never worked out anywhere. Cuba being the perfect example of a society without commodity markets.

Commie diatribes become pathetically amusing when you inform yourself a little.

Are there excesses? Of course. And they straighten themselves out when you leave them alone. Lots of hedge funds go belly up. But they have nothing directly to do with commodity markets and their central role in stabilizing our economy.

It's funny to me that NO ONE ever names soros as a greedy market manipulator, but he's grown extremely wealthy taking down currency markets in exactly the greedy manner decried by the profit haters. Why is that? Why is that more specifically in light of the fact that soros has worked for years to destroy the value of the dollar and to prop up the value of other currencies in order to fatally weaken our economy. Never hear the commies railing about that. Know why? It' because soros is himself a communist, a fellow traveler who wants to destroy America's free markets so he can control them. Know what else? Soros is behind the dems nominating another communist, hussein mohammed obama. He in fact claims that he OWNS the dem party. Just so all you fellow travelers who have profits know who you're in the sleeping bag with..... How do I know this stuff? I read Forbes magazine for one thing. I try to get my information from people who actually know what they're talking about.

I hope someone is at least a little better informed and maybe slightly amused if you've actually read this far.

[Grizz]

Oh, what the heck, I'll nit-pick on one of the points, on the electric cars. I wouldn't be surprised if your summary is correct regarding the current state of the art, but American ingenuity is working on super-capacitors which would change the equation. If they could deliver a 75 mi range, most commuting needs would be met, leaving gasoline for road trips in the larger car. Perhaps they won't be able to deliver such cells, but $4/gal gasoline is spurring the effort.

Your comments on recycling of the batteries ring true, and I've wondered if solar cells will ultimately prove a failure for the same reason. I haven't seen an analysis of the full cycle for solar cells.

Capicitors are like batteries, they store electricity. They still have to be charged with electricity, and the electricity has to be generated. We can do that with nukes or coal fired plants, or windmills, or diesel generators. But generating electricity is essential before you can use it to turn wheels.

I agree that someone may come up with something compelling and useful someday. But unless the primary generator is onboard, electric vehicles aren't likely to get anywhere close to the performance of gas ones in terms of load capacity, independence, range, and versatility.

Will hydrogen cars be the solution? It still comes down to the infrastructure. We've already built the infrastructure that allows us to operate a hundred million cars. Think of the cumulative cost of getting to this point, and then extrapolate that forward to get an idea of what replacing that technology entails.

Killing our economy today isn't gonna make windmill powered cars available anytime soon.....

Grizz

[Peter M. Eick]

I was thinking about this thread today. Couple of points. ANWR has a lot of oil. Go hit google and pull up the USGS assessments on it and look at how many known oil seeps are on the surface. The Jago, Hula Hula, Canning and Colville river if I remember all had known seeps. Those just don't happen because of fun and elk. Oil is leaking to the surface so it is coming from somewhere. It has been a while since I looked at my old maps, but there is a lot of good prospects in ANWR to drill.

Now why do I want to drill offshore and ANWR? Simple. It is called the "creaming curve". In new exploration areas you tend to find the big things first. Lets face it. We go to the range and someone has been blasting with a 50 browning and a bunch of rifles and handguns. What is the easiest to see and find? The 380 auto's or the 50 browning rounds? The big 50. Bigger is easier to find and it is worth more. Thus offshore California, Oregon, Washington, Florida, east coast and ANWR is where the next really big field will be found. Continuing to poke around in the domestic US, the odds of finding a multi-billion barrel oil field are slim. Offshore Florida, ANWR or California? High.

Next point, When you fill up your car, do you think about where that gas is coming from?
Did it come from a solar cell? Nope
Did it come from a wind turbine? Nope
Did it come from a corn stock? Maybe 10%
Did it come from Nuclear plant? Nope
Did it come from coal? Nope
Did it come from some pie in the sky alternative energy source we are supposed to be paying for? Nope

Lets face it, that gas came from a refinery fed by an oil rig somewhere.

You want cheaper gas, then we need to drill and drill NOW!

All of that other stuff is great for the future but for the next 3 to 10 years, the only real practical fuel for the US is OIL! Now lets get after it and start fixing the government problems that won't allow us to drill and solve our problems.

[popeye44]

I dont know too much about oil and gas. I hunt a lot in different places where gas and oil wells are. From 1990 to 2000
3/4 of the wells I saw were not pumping. Since 05-06 most of them are. The areas I hunt are pa tx wy. I work in the
nuclear industry. There are app 103 reactors on line in the USA. They produce 20-22% of our elect. We have brought
2 new reactors on line since'88. #2@Vogtle in'89. Browns Ferry in 05-6. There are quite a few new reactors planned
and some have gotten the go ahead. From reading about the time for oil fields double that for a nuke. Our nuclear
program was shot in the foot by two events-TMI and Jimmy Cracker.Actually Jimmy shot it in the HEAD. Oh yes, our
great politicians. He gave away the Panama Canal.Now the Chinese own and operate it.

[oldmax]

Hey Grizz, may want to read this

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish ... 3326.shtml