A short term solution to lowering our dependence on foreign oil

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bruce on July 13, 2008 at 7:48pm

Less we forget Pickens main strategic statement "WE CANNOT DRILL OUR WAY OUT OF THIS". If we could we would just put off the inevitalbe for another year or ten. We need to change our way of living, and way of energy. Softcrush I found the information on oil and gasoline exports simply by googling "US exports of oil and gas" and found several sites with the statistics. It stated about 10 to 15 percent leaves the country for good.

Permalink Reply by Mark Werner on July 13, 2008 at 10:18pm

Oil and its byproducts and coal are leading causes of cancer and respiratory disease. Think of your grandchildren!! There is no way to drill out of this, the world population is expanding way to fast and you want more pollution. We sent a man to moon forty years ago, this isn't rocket science, let's finally get serious about clean energy. Many new technologies are out there, they just need a level playing field and investment.

Permalink Reply by Peak Dad on July 13, 2008 at 11:19pm

ANWR estimates vary from nothing to infinity.

The estimates you use (9-16 billion barrels) are what I tend to believe. So let's do a little long division, shall we?

16 Billion / 21 mbd (current US consumption) = 762 days.
That's 2 years, 32 days.
Also remember that the maximum flow rate from Prudhoe Bay was 2 mbd.

ANWR - no matter which estimates you look at - is a small contribution to a short-term, stop-gap measure at best. But should we tap it? It's not as easy as... Caribou say "no." Greedy SUV's say "yes."

Some view ANWR as a natural form of Strategic Petroluem Reserve. If we empty both tanks (ANWR and SPR) so that we can drive to the mall more cheaply today, what will we do if an actually emergency rolls around in the future? If we enter a petroleum starved economic collapse, it will make the Great Depression look like a scary carnival ride at most.

I think ANWR needs to be explored, quantified, inventoried, and prepared for drilling. But no more for now. It's like my wise grandmother said to me, "Peak Dad (actual birth name), stay out of marriage if you can." That bit of advice has been some of the best ever given to me.

Here's my final thought. ANWR and SPR should be categorized under the same name.

Permalink Reply by Ethan on July 13, 2008 at 11:59pm

This "tiny, barren piece of land" is essential to many forms of natural wildlife flora and fauna- yeah, caribou tend to "migrate" instead of grazing things down to the roots like livestock. You say "barren" just like developers call fertile American farmland "undeveloped or under utilized"! I don't seem to recall a lot of "poisonous or dangerous farm produce" back when that "undeveloped farm land" was actually used to produce the food we ate in this country. And if there was a problem it didn't take two months to find the source.
Back to ANWAR - To say that "developing this" will help us in the short term is ludicrous!
Even with the amazingly advanced capabilities of KBR and the other "vetted oil technology and war profiteers" to electrocute our soldiers, they would STILL take about TEN YEARS to actually develop ANWAR to produce the first drop of oil. So, sit down and shut up when you don't take into account the "real world" involved in developing a drill site!
As to the Congress standing in the way, yes, they are fairly useless but, just look at all the PUBLICALLY OWNED LAND that has been "leased for oil exploration and development "- over 7000 leases have been approved in the last few years but, gee- the oil companies and the Government have only started DEVELOPING about 1700 of the already leased sites!
So, this "emergency need to open ANWAR - THIS IS THE HYSTERICAL RESPONSE!! !
All of these leases prevent the true owners, the American public from using THEIR OWN LAND for anything else but the purposes of the oil lease. That's right in the last two years - hundreds of thousand of acres have been effectively stolen from the American public while everyone screams to open up (which actually means 'steal from the public, the American taxpayer") for the benefit of Oil companies who are making BILLIONS of dollars in profit - not gross, after taxes!
So, if you are so convinced that ANWAR must be opened right now - first, go develop one of these other leased sites and then tell us why we have to subvert yet another law benefitting the average American for the benefit of a wealthy few who move their business centers to the middle East because they don't want to be accountable to these same American taxpayers.
You do that first, then maybe, you have a valid claim to lobby to open up whats LEFT of the original ANWAR area.

Permalink Reply by Ethan on July 14, 2008 at 12:12am

Carl Burnham said:

Rick, you need to educate yourself...
Bush is not the fault of everything that has gone wrong, nor are oil companies dragging their feet.

http://www.anwr.org/Headlines/The-Gas-Prices-We-Deserve.php

"One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. Seventy-two of today's senators -- including 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain-- have voted to keep ANWR's estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market."

As for environmental concerns, consider this - "Offshore? Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a large spill.
There has not been a significant spill from an offshore U.S.well since 1969 (that's almost a 40 year record).
Of the more than 7 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore in the past 25 years, 0.001 percent -- that is one-thousandth of 1 percent -- has been spilled. Louisiana has more than 3,200 rigs offshore -- and a thriving commercial fishing industry."

Permalink Reply by Roberta on July 14, 2008 at 12:26am

Well It is a matter of supply and demand no matter how you want to put it. We are never going to get congress or the oil industries to make any real changes untill we get fed up with them and all the blame game that they have been doing for years now. Why aren't more people yelling at the top of their lungs. Tell them to stop the crap and do their job and pass a real plan now. Instead they will keep up with more hearings on do nothing plans and we will be in the same place where we are today in 10 years but gas will be 10.00 a gallon. I say fire all of them don't vote for the incomming rep or your state.

Permalink Reply by Ethan on July 14, 2008 at 12:28am

Ethan said:

Carl Burnham said:

Rick, you need to educate yourself...
Bush is not the fault of everything that has gone wrong, nor are oil companies dragging their feet.

http://www.anwr.org/Headlines/The-Gas-Prices-We-Deserve.php

"One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. Seventy-two of today's senators -- including 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain-- have voted to keep ANWR's estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market."

As for environmental concerns, consider this - "Offshore? Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a large spill.
There has not been a significant spill from an offshore U.S.well since 1969 (that's almost a 40 year record).
Of the more than 7 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore in the past 25 years, 0.001 percent -- that is one-thousandth of 1 percent -- has been spilled. Louisiana has more than 3,200 rigs offshore -- and a thriving commercial fishing industry."

There is some question about how much of the "thriving commercial fishing" that is back in business in Louisianna. Mississippi sure, they got almost 6 billion dollars to expand their port that was TAKEN AWAY from the City of New Orleans - money specifically voted by Congress to help rebuild low income housing. And there is a strange amount of silence about the fact that the disruption of the Oil refineries along the Texas and Louisianna coasts and the shipment through the Port of New Orleans has also contributed to the rise in fuel prices here in the US.
As for lack of oil spills, qualify that as "significant or major" instead of none.
I don't hear much about the "Welfare payments that Big Oil has been receiving since the Carter Administration" in exchange for a "promise" to invest in American refinery and production capabilities IN THE USA- AND to maintain, repair and build additional refinery capability. They are still being paid but, if one digs a little into obscure news you find the oil pipeline from Alaska breaking and dumping several million gallons simply because the Oil Company didn't feel it was important to actually do the required cleaning of the pipeline on a regular basis. Then there is the "rash" of Refinery explosions and fires that were all determined to be caused by - again, poor maintenance and a lack of interest by management in the safety of the employees or the communities nearby. The reasoning given by the companies - They didn't have the money to invest in "New plants" because they would have to invest in "New technology - like pollution controls and safety upgrades". All of this when even in their public accounting, it is clear that they spent more on PR Ad campaigns than they did on Research and Development of either new oil fields or new refineries. I would look at the water quality around the Gulf and the number of actual shrimp and fishing boats, and wonder why more than 50% of the shrimp consumed in this country each day are coming from places like Vietnam and Thailand?

Permalink Reply by Carl Burnham on July 14, 2008 at 12:49am

Ethan -
From what I understand of the process from looking over on drilling on public land -
https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/1990/RL32315_2...
is that it is a very lengthy process involving a lot of government red tape and a multitude of studies completed that oil companies have to go through prior to developing on these leased sites that takes several years.
Someone who is in the business could probably elaborate much more eloquently than I in regard to the steps that have to be taken prior to drilling ever being allowed.

Permalink Reply by Carl Burnham on July 14, 2008 at 1:19am

Roberta -

Yes, Washington is a train wreck. The Federal budget is in serious trouble (look for my other post that points to how overextended it is - the former GAO head harped on this for years).
The problem that commonly happens when a politician gets elected. They look around at all the great perks of their office and say.. Hmmm, this is nice, I need to plan to stay around here. So, they cater to special interest groups, and talk out of both sides of their mouth, have meeting after meeting, hearing after hearing, study after study, debate topics to death, and end up not doing anything about the important issues.
Then you have multiple layers of government agencies doing similar tasks that could/should be eliminated. Turf protection is rampant. It's a frustrating cycle of multi-layered bureaucracy. We need less government interference/programs not more.

Permalink Reply by Kim Reniska on July 14, 2008 at 1:28am

Carl,
Drilling for oil in Alaska is not a short term solution. It is a mid-term solution (2-3 years to produce the oil, then it will only last 7 months - 2 years).

A short term solution would be what can we do before then end of this summer.
SLOW DOWN!!! Drive 10-15 mph slower and save 25% - 40% on gas.

Save Money, Reduce Oil Imports, Be a Patriot!

25 Year Compregensive Plan

Slow Down and Save

Permalink Reply by Kim Reniska on July 14, 2008 at 1:41am

You may be right.

Richard Pennise said:

That oil up there has too much sulfur for the u.s. market, we will not get a drop in the states it will all go to Japan & china. Is that not the truth oilman?

Permalink Reply by Ethan on July 14, 2008 at 1:48am

Carl Burnham said:

Ethan -
From what I understand of the process from looking over on drilling on public land -
https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/1990/RL32315_2...
is that it is a very lengthy process involving a lot of government red tape and a multitude of studies completed that oil companies have to go through prior to developing on these leased sites that takes several years.
Someone who is in the business could probably elaborate much more eloquently than I in regard to the steps that have to be taken prior to drilling ever being allowed.

Thanks for looking at my post. yes, it does take a lot of work to comply with the regulations BUT most of these areas have already been "researched" in that they are a fairly "known" geological quantity.
With the "new" sound/magnetic mapping being showcased in the Oil company ads, the companies should have a really high certainty that sufficient oil deposits are PROBABLE to justify buying the lease. The troubling thing really is how little the Federal Agencies in charge of OUR public lands know about the Oil companies technology or even about what the environmental consequences could be.
Take for instance the EPA director's recent abdication of his duty to the American people because He refused to follow his own agency scientist's recommendations, the US Supreme Court telling him in clear and certain terms He DOES HAVE the authority to rule on issues the EPA was specifically created to be the action officer on, and the majority of Americans, in refusing to publish the actual scientific findings that prove there IS a significant adverse affect on the health and safety of PEOPLE, human beings, from greenhouse gasses - carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and others. This would trigger the provisions of the Clean Air Act - something that would be a MANDATE for the Oil companies to actually follow through on their welfare recipient promises to build and maintain new refineries that comply with the laws.
I know this goes a little off of the topic but, it does tie in with the ,subtle behind the headlines, reasons why all of these leases have "suddenly" been given a green light.
It does also support why ANWAR should actually be left alone. It would be more cost effective in terms of distance to be transported and weather hazards to develop the already leased lands of the lower 48, and build a refinery that anticipates the needs of the future instead of clinging to the outdated strategy of "stamping their feet and pouting" about living up to their end of the contract - private capital gets a "sweetheart deal" on the lease precisely so they will invest their money into the development.
Unless they are buying up leases as a way to control access to water or other resources on these Public lands, they are not at any economic disadvantage. Some of these leases are actually renewals of prior leases.
They have been mapping these areas since the 1940's with fairly sophisticated geological analysis, so that there are very few "oilmen" who consistently drill dry holes. With the advent of technological advances in "horizontal drilling" capabilities there is even less reason to say that "new site development" is actually necessary.
It is a matter of geology, geography and money anyway you look at it. The Demming formula is always the model for any accurate analysis of "cost effective".
The oil sands development in Canada sounds wonderful unless you actually look at it from the air, or measure the air quality or the runoff into the water supplies. That area won't be easy to be "reclaimed" and I will bet it doesn't get that way unless Government does it.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page