Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are doing just that. That's really why we're in Iraq. This was all pointed out very nicely in "The Oil Factor" by Leeb back in 2003, which he wrote before the invasion of Iraq. Leeb told us that our military would be used, often, to assure that the western nations had access to oil. There will be more oil wars in the future until we get off that stuff. I think it's a disgrace that it's come to this. Carter tried to get the ball rolling to get us energy independent, subsequent administrations killed it and did nothing. Here we are, still sucking the oil nipple.
And that may be true, it depends on how sinister you think the intentions of the last administration were. My point is we can do allot more for our own strategic interests by developing our own resources. However there are some who seem to think our own oil industry is more diabolical than the terrorists who are shooting at us. The level of anti-capitalist indoctrination that has taken place in this country is scary. In fact, who is it exactly that is going to deveolp the new renewable energy technologies? Mainly the same large scale industries (including "Big Oil" companies) that are being held up as the villians right now.
Encourage it how? Clearly the push to "Drill Baby Drill" was based upon anticipation of much higher sustained oil prices. Only a complete moron would think that oil companies were hoping to increase the areas that they could exploit in hopes of reducing the price of a barrel of oil. In point of fact, much of the "Off the Continental Shelf" drilling that was being demanded is extremely expensive, which is why there was never a major push by the oil companies in previous years. So, unless you can reduce the cost, significantly, for drilling there is not much incentive for oil companies to increase drilling.
This precisely what happened in the 80's. OPEC runs up price, oil companies expand production capacity, demand drops, so does investment in exploration and capacity. Pretty simple.
The drilling would obviously create more of a supply which would send prices lower and there is no way oil companies want prices lower per barrel then they are now!
Since oil is key to U.S. Strategic interest, I have an idea, instead of leasing oil rights on Federal lands, why the hell not keep the damned oil and bid out extraction contracts just like every OPEC nation. This would allow the U.S. to sell its oil at or below market value because one of the great fallacies of Drill Baby Drill is that oil extracted from domestic sources is pre-committed to domestic markets, which of course is the furtherest from the truth. Domestic oil production is just added to the overall pool and its price is dictated by a global market. Nationalize the oil, privatize the extraction and get the best of both worlds rather than subsidizing the Big Oil companies and then buying it back at inflated prices..
I have no problem with that. But I think you're going to find that the companies who would bid to do the work are the same ones doing it now. Unless you happen to have several billion dolloars worth of oil drilling equipment laying around your back yard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
The point of this thread is the fact that Big Oil doesn't give a damn about Drill Baby Drill unless oil prices are through the damned roof.
OK, so they want to make a profit. What's wrong with that? Do you go to work every day for free?
Point is, if we want development now we need to find other economic incentives for them to proceed.
The drilling would obviously create more of a supply which would send prices lower and there is no way oil companies want prices lower per barrel then they are now!
OK, so they want to make a profit. What's wrong with that? Do you go to work every day for free?
[quote=Moose Whisperer;7894762]Once again, we get the usual slew of specious and irrelevant straw-man and red-herring arguments that do nothing but demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about basic energy infrastructure and economics.
Where have I ever advocated not moving forward to a renewable future? (go back and read my posts carefully).
And where did I argue that oil IS NOT a finite resource and IS NOT in decline. That is precislely the reason we need to conntinue with an agressive exploration and production strategy now. Just because oil is a limited resource does not mean that there isn't any more left. Despite what you read in your "Peak Oil" fringe publications, proven untapped oil reserves in the US alone are close to 100 billion barrels (Alskan north slope and arctic offshore, Pacific and Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf, and coal shale technologies in the Rockies). This puts the USA fourth in proven reserves after Saudia Arabia, Iran, and Russia.
Peak oil is not a 'fringe theory' as you like to claim, but a fundamental fact of oil drilling. The only debate is over the precise date of the onset of decline. The vast bulk of the oil you've quoted is in the form of oil shale which has an EREOI of around 1, making it useless. You are also ignoring the fact that peak oil is about flow rates, not reserves.
Peak oil is not a 'fringe theory' as you like to claim, but a fundamental fact of oil drilling. The only debate is over the precise date of the onset of decline. The vast bulk of the oil you've quoted is in the form of oil shale which has an EREOI of around 1, making it useless. You are also ignoring the fact that peak oil is about flow rates, not reserves.
True, the fact that field flow rates decline overtime is fact. The "fringe" part to which I refer is the belief by most subscribers to hard core "peak oil" dogma that society will collapse and we will be beating each other with rocks and sticks within a decade.
However peak oil is apllicable to more than just flow rates when reserves are artificially held out of production for political purposes.
And the number I've seen puts oil shale at about 50% of US reserves (50 billion bbl), so other sources like the OCS and Alaska North Coast(Beafort and Chuckchi Seas) and North Slope/ANWR are viable. And oil shale is not completely useless, just more expensive.
The drilling would obviously create more of a supply which would send prices lower and there is no way oil companies want prices lower per barrel then they are now!
What is also so obvious is that according to the Energy Department, at even the most optimistic forecast the amount of additional domestic production would be so fractionally small as to have little to no impact on global prices.
Point is, if we want development now we need to find other economic incentives for them to proceed.
And, I am waiting for a proposal which will subsidize the 100% decline in market price of oil, so that further exploration would be deemed "profitable."
And, I am waiting for a proposal which will subsidize the 100% decline in market price of oil, so that further exploration would be deemed "profitable."
It depends on the costs associated with the particular geographical area under consideration. I'm not an accountant. Are you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
