PDA

View Full Version : Drill Our Way to Lower Oil Prices? Yes We Can!



Stoney
03-16-2012, 09:45 AM
Energy: Just as President Obama was lecturing the country about how more drilling won't lower gas prices, oil markets called his lie — cutting prices $2 a barrel in mere talk of releasing some oil from the strategic reserve.

As the Washington Post reported on Thursday, oil prices "dropped quickly ... on a news report that Britain and the United States would cooperate on a release of crude oil from strategic reserves."

Got that? On a news report. No oil has been released. It's not even clear if any ever will, since the Obama administration can't get its story straight. And even if the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) were tapped, it would only be for a relatively small amount.

Investors Business Daily (http://news.investors.com/article/604557/201203151838/oil-prices-drop-quickly-on-talk-of-petroleum-reserve-release.htm)

MMC
03-16-2012, 10:08 AM
Did we release a statement that we would do so? I mean I know Cameron was here. I might have seen something and wasnt paying attention. Either way it will only be a temporary fix.

Although I thought Shell was approved now to drill in the NW Corner of Alaska. They cleared all the Court hurdles and were proceeding last time I heard. They were suppose to start this Year. Here at the beginning of the year.

wingrider
03-16-2012, 03:34 PM
hmmm, seems I read that in the corner of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah there is an estimated 2 Trillion barrells of Oil..

oh yeah here it is:

http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/US-shale-oil-deposits-2-trillion-barrels-crude-oil.php

Mainecoons
03-16-2012, 04:01 PM
No, wrongo! Under our fearless leader, we will all drive cars with solar panels and wear propeller beanies that are wired to little generators. Once we get going, we all stick our heads out the windows and the beanies generate so much power that we are quickly doing 85 in a 45 mph zone!

wingrider
03-16-2012, 05:31 PM
No, wrongo! Under our fearless leader, we will all drive cars with solar panels and wear propeller beanies that are wired to little generators. Once we get going, we all stick our heads out the windows and the beanies generate so much power that we are quickly doing 85 in a 45 mph zone! did you miss the decimal point?

8.5 mph in a 45 mph zone. and we need to stop every 50 miles and recharge or carry one long extension cord.

Stoney
03-16-2012, 07:31 PM
Did we release a statement that we would do so? I mean I know Cameron was here. I might have seen something and wasnt paying attention. Either way it will only be a temporary fix.

Although I thought Shell was approved now to drill in the NW Corner of Alaska. They cleared all the Court hurdles and were proceeding last time I heard. They were suppose to start this Year. Here at the beginning of the year.

Some news organization reported that a source was telling them that some of the reserves would be dumped. It didn't take long for the White House to deny the report. Oil might have dropped $20 if they'd let the story ride for the day.

MMC
03-16-2012, 08:16 PM
hmmm, seems I read that in the corner of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah there is an estimated 2 Trillion barrells of Oil..

oh yeah here it is:

http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/US-shale-oil-deposits-2-trillion-barrels-crude-oil.php

2Trillion? Ah Shale Oil. Uhm.....then why do we need a pipeline from Canada?

Mainecoons
03-17-2012, 07:22 AM
did you miss the decimal point?

8.5 mph in a 45 mph zone. and we need to stop every 50 miles and recharge or carry one long extension cord.

That's why you need the propeller beanies, silly!

wingrider
03-17-2012, 07:35 PM
2Trillion? Ah Shale Oil. Uhm.....then why do we need a pipeline from Canada?
because drilling here and building the pipeline would have created thousands of jobs, and that just does not fit into the administrations plans for making every citizen dependant on government for everything.

waltky
10-26-2012, 06:39 PM
Granny says, "Dat's right - purt soon we all gonna be burnin' cheap natural gas an' holdin' hands an' singin' Kumbaya whilst we thumb our noses an' tell dem Arabs dey can sit inna sand an' pound salt...
:wink:
Industry study backs green natural gas
WASHINGTON, Oct. 26,`12 (UPI) -- A survey prepared for two U.S. natural gas trade groups claims greenhouse gas emissions from gas production are lower than expected.


A 57-page report prepared by engineering company URS Corp. and environmental consultancy The Levon Group for the American Petroleum Institute and America's Natural Gas alliance says greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas production are lower than previous estimates. ANGA Executive Vice President Tom Amontree said the scientific study was drafted to reinforce a position that natural gas is a clean energy option for the United States.

The study says methane emissions from natural gas production are at least 53 percent lower than estimates provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The URS-Levon study examined 91,000 wells from 20 different companies, compared to the 8,800 in an EPA survey. "Industry has led efforts to reduce emissions of methane by developing new technologies and equipment, and these efforts are paying off," Howard Feldman, API director of regulatory and scientific affairs, said in a statement.

API has described as unscientific recent EPA findings that chemicals associated with natural gas production in underground shale formations were detectable in groundwater monitoring wells. There was no public comment available from the EPA on the emissions report.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/10/26/Industry-study-backs-green-natural-gas/UPI-30881351252383/#ixzz2ARzbU5UE

See also:

Obama shows support for natural gas
WASHINGTON, Oct. 26,`12 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama is touting the economic benefits of natural gas in a way he never did four years ago as a candidate.


U.S. President Barack Obama, in a plan for his second term released this week, is touting the economic benefits of natural gas in a way he never did four years ago as a candidate. The shift reflects a new political reality -- prices are down for natural gas and jobs are up -- that is causing the United States' "green president" to embrace a changing power landscape. "He didn't see this coming at all but you should say that most people didn't see it coming," said William S. Peirce, professor emeritus of economics at Case Western University. "It happened so quickly that the administration didn't have time to oppose it."

The economic rationale outlined in the plan is a change from four years ago when Obama was more focused on the environmental impact of energy policy. But with the economy top of mind for voters, and the natural gas industry providing a welcome boost, Obama has embraced natural gas production. The price of natural gas hit a 10-year low in March, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said, buoyed by hydraulic fracturing, which is also called fracking. "The drilling boom and the associated beginnings of construction of new plants will certainly help him in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania," Peirce said.

Though he may not deserve much of the credit, Obama stands to benefit from the bump natural gas has given to economies in those key swing states. The campaign pamphlet released this week, "The New Economic Patriotism: A Plan for Jobs and Middle-Class Security," is being touted in a national ad campaign as a jobs plan. As in the presidential debates between Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, many of the environmental buzzwords from 2008 -- climate change, global warming -- are absent from the document.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/10/26/Obama-shows-support-for-natural-gas/UPI-92511351258893/#ixzz2AS03W8dz

Morningstar
10-26-2012, 06:43 PM
Investors Business Daily (http://news.investors.com/article/604557/201203151838/oil-prices-drop-quickly-on-talk-of-petroleum-reserve-release.htm)

No, the USA can't drill enough additional oil to significantly move the price.

It's physically impossible.

Morningstar
10-26-2012, 06:45 PM
hmmm, seems I read that in the corner of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah there is an estimated 2 Trillion barrells of Oil..

oh yeah here it is:

http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/US-shale-oil-deposits-2-trillion-barrels-crude-oil.php

Doesn't matter.

The daily price isn't based on how much is in the ground.

The price is based on how much is at market.

Peter1469
10-26-2012, 08:15 PM
No, the USA can't drill enough additional oil to significantly move the price.

It's physically impossible.

It could if the US produced oil / natural gas solely for US consumption (selling excess of course).

In a global market you are correct.

Morningstar
10-26-2012, 08:27 PM
It could if the US produced oil / natural gas solely for US consumption (selling excess of course).

In a global market you are correct.

That would be a different beast. But we probably can't produce enough for our own consumption anyway, so taking our oil off the market could possibly trigger spikes on imports.

But it is an interesting idea. Worth exploring.

waltky
10-26-2012, 08:44 PM
MorningStar wrote: No, the USA can't drill enough additional oil to significantly move the price.

While that may be true, we can convert vehicles to and pump enough natural gas...

... that it would affect demand for oil and thus lower oil and gasoline prices...

... Granny says there's more dan one way to skin dem Arabs.
;)

Morningstar
10-26-2012, 08:45 PM
MorningStar wrote: No, the USA can't drill enough additional oil to significantly move the price.

While that may be true, we can convert vehicles to and pump enough natural gas...

... that it would affect demand for oil and thus lower oil and gasoline prices...

... Granny says there's more dan one way to skin dem Arabs.
;)


I'm all for whatever works.

Peter1469
10-26-2012, 08:47 PM
That would be a different beast. But we probably can't produce enough for our own consumption anyway, so taking our oil off the market could possibly trigger spikes on imports.

But it is an interesting idea. Worth exploring.

We could supply our own needs if we had the will to do it and to violate free market principles.

Peter1469
10-26-2012, 08:48 PM
MorningStar wrote: No, the USA can't drill enough additional oil to significantly move the price.

While that may be true, we can convert vehicles to and pump enough natural gas...

... that it would affect demand for oil and thus lower oil and gasoline prices...

... Granny says there's more dan one way to skin dem Arabs.
;)


Right

http://www.energyvictory.net/energy_victory_tour.htm

shaarona
10-26-2012, 08:58 PM
Right

http://www.energyvictory.net/energy_victory_tour.htm

Do you agree with Zubrin?

So his objective is to smash OPEC.. OPEC keeps supply and price relatively steady.

If the ppb goes to $50 a barrel, the economy will crash worldwide.

waltky
10-26-2012, 11:14 PM
shaarona wrote: If the ppb goes to $50 a barrel, the economy will crash worldwide.

Au contraire, grasshopper...

... notice how the global economy started to come out of the recession...

... when gas prices came down.

Lower gas prices would lower lots of other transportation costs...

... such as shipping and freight...

... and would therefore be a boost to the economy.

The only places the economy might crash would be oil producing countries...

... such as Russia and Iran who would find themselves much like Putin did...

... when oil prices dropped and they couldn't afford...

... to be so uppity on the world scene.

Ya might want to start watchin' more of Charlie Rose.

Peter1469
10-26-2012, 11:34 PM
Do you agree with Zubrin?

So his objective is to smash OPEC.. OPEC keeps supply and price relatively steady.

If the ppb goes to $50 a barrel, the economy will crash worldwide.

Absolutely I agree with Dr. Zurbin. His plan would cause more damage to the Middle East than anything short of a total nuclear strike. And it would turn the US into the manufacturing capital of earth. We could finally tell the Saudi ambassador "sorry, I never heard of your country. Go away."

shaarona
10-26-2012, 11:52 PM
Absolutely I agree with Dr. Zurbin. His plan would cause more damage to the Middle East than anything short of a total nuclear strike. And it would turn the US into the manufacturing capital of earth. We could finally tell the Saudi ambassador "sorry, I never heard of your country. Go away."

The problem is that the price of gas at the pump would be much higher because we have such high lift costs.. and there would be shortages.

We don't have any wells that are pumping 17,000 barrels a day.

Our wells pump 30 or 50 or 200 barrels a day.

IMO.. He's FOS... but I think the guy is driven by another, more emotional agenda.

He mentioned $50 a barrel.. Our lift costs fall in the range of $30-45 a barrel.

Do you see the problem?

We could just drill and pump like mad until we put domestic oil production out of business.

Peter1469
10-27-2012, 12:28 AM
The problem is that the price of gas at the pump would be much higher because we have such high lift costs.. and there would be shortages.

We don't have any wells that are pumping 17,000 barrels a day.

Our wells pump 30 or 50 or 200 barrels a day.

IMO.. He's FOS... but I think the guy is driven by another, more emotional agenda.

He mentioned $50 a barrel.. Our lift costs fall in the range of $30-45 a barrel.

Do you see the problem?

We could just drill and pump like mad until we put domestic oil production out of business.

Read the Zubrin link. Oil prices won't matter.

shaarona
10-27-2012, 05:58 AM
Read the Zubrin link. Oil prices won't matter.

Because of Methanol?

http://global.nationalreview.com/images/pic_chart_011612_A.jpg

Peter1469
10-27-2012, 07:15 AM
Did you look at the link. The book discusses methanol, and ethanol. We can replace all uses of oil with alcohol fuels. We can market those products to the world. We can replace oil. If that happened, the Middle East's economy would return to the 7th century and meet up with their culture.

shaarona
10-27-2012, 07:39 AM
Did you look at the link. The book discusses methanol, and ethanol. We can replace all uses of oil with alcohol fuels. We can market those products to the world. We can replace oil. If that happened, the Middle East's economy would return to the 7th century and meet up with their culture.

Yes.. I did read the link and a couple others I ferreted out.

Some economies in the ME will return to the 7th century.... but others have very experienced leadership and good planning... Plus markets are still growing... especially in the East.

Peter1469
10-27-2012, 07:56 AM
Yes.. I did read the link and a couple others I ferreted out.

Some economies in the ME will return to the 7th century.... but others have very experienced leadership and good planning... Plus markets are still growing... especially in the East.

Yes, the markets in Indonesia will continue to grow. They are emerging. They also have a very different brand of Islam than the Arabs and Persians. They are much more laid back about it.

shaarona
10-27-2012, 08:07 AM
Yes, the markets in Indonesia will continue to grow. They are emerging. They also have a very different brand of Islam than the Arabs and Persians. They are much more laid back about it.

You know by now that I am an inveterate Saudi watcher.. The pace of reform is speeding up.. in ways that surprise even me.. and I am a huge fan of King Abdullah and Prince Salman.

More opportunities for women.. a cautious reopening of movie theaters after 30 years.. Manufacturing exploding since 2007.. A sea change in education towards critical thinking.

And this past month the King told the people to embrace modernity.

I tend to be a bit of a nerd and just finished re reading Modernity and Tradition: the Saudi Equation...

I think they are making huge strides.

Morningstar
10-27-2012, 08:07 AM
We could supply our own needs if we had the will to do it and to violate free market principles.

Possibly, if we used nat gas in place of oil in many applications.

I don't think we could ever produce 20 million barrels of oil a day.

Morningstar
10-27-2012, 08:10 AM
shaarona wrote: If the ppb goes to $50 a barrel, the economy will crash worldwide.

Au contraire, grasshopper...

... notice how the global economy started to come out of the recession...

... when gas prices came down.

Lower gas prices would lower lots of other transportation costs...

... such as shipping and freight...

... and would therefore be a boost to the economy.

The only places the economy might crash would be oil producing countries...

... such as Russia and Iran who would find themselves much like Putin did...

... when oil prices dropped and they couldn't afford...

... to be so uppity on the world scene.

Ya might want to start watchin' more of Charlie Rose.

The problem with lower oil prices is that it makes shale oil unprofitable. It's a very costly process, compared to pumping in Saudi Arabia, for instance.

So the American rigs might shut down, costing jobs.

shaarona
10-27-2012, 08:16 AM
Possibly, if we used nat gas in place of oil in many applications.

I don't think we could ever produce 20 million barrels of oil a day.

I don't think we can either..

And, shale oil and tar sands come with HUGE water requirements and significant environmental problems.

Morningstar
10-27-2012, 08:25 AM
I don't think we can either..

And, shale oil and tar sands come with HUGE water requirements and significant environmental problems.

I think the jury is still out on that.

At this time, I have no problem with shale oil operations. And, of course, I favor anything that creates high-paying jobs in the USA.

But too many people correlate higher domestic oil production with lower oil prices, not knowing all of the details of the processes and costs involved.

Mainecoons
10-27-2012, 08:28 AM
I don't think higher domestic oil production will affect prices much since oil is priced on a world market. You would save transportation costs but more importantly, you create a lot of high paying jobs AND you sharply reduce the trade deficit if you stop importing foreign oil.

shaarona
10-27-2012, 08:31 AM
But too many people correlate higher domestic oil production with lower oil prices, not knowing all of the details of the processes and costs involved.

On that much, we agree.

I guess I come with a lot of baggage. I remember when papa Bush went to the Saudis and begged them to raise the ppb because domestic producers were going broke... circa 1986.

Perhaps a combination of strategies.

Morningstar
10-27-2012, 08:32 AM
I don't think higher domestic oil production will affect prices much since oil is priced on a world market. You would save transportation costs but more importantly, you create a lot of high paying jobs AND you sharply reduce the trade deficit if you stop importing foreign oil.

Unless it turns out that it is drastically dangerous to the environment, and kills all kinds of people, there is no reason not to do it.

The energy sector is a great place to create high-paying, rewarding jobs. And, it increases the tax base, reducing the deficit!

Peter1469
10-27-2012, 12:51 PM
You know by now that I am an inveterate Saudi watcher.. The pace of reform is speeding up.. in ways that surprise even me.. and I am a huge fan of King Abdullah and Prince Salman.

More opportunities for women.. a cautious reopening of movie theaters after 30 years.. Manufacturing exploding since 2007.. A sea change in education towards critical thinking.

And this past month the King told the people to embrace modernity.

I tend to be a bit of a nerd and just finished re reading Modernity and Tradition: the Saudi Equation...

I think they are making huge strides.

I have seen that as well. I also noticed that the Royal Family caused many of their members to disappear in the years after 9-11 as it became know they were tied to al Qaeda. Stepping up.

Peter1469
10-27-2012, 12:52 PM
Possibly, if we used nat gas in place of oil in many applications.

I don't think we could ever produce 20 million barrels of oil a day.

We don't have to.

http://energyvictory.net/

Morningstar
10-27-2012, 12:55 PM
We don't have to.

http://energyvictory.net/

I don't happen to like alcohol-based fuels, for a number of reasons.

Peter1469
10-27-2012, 01:22 PM
I don't happen to like alcohol-based fuels, for a number of reasons.


Not relevant. It would serve as a transportation fuel to compete with oil. It would prevent the price of oil from rising. Competition- and a truer free market.

Morningstar
10-27-2012, 01:59 PM
Not relevant. It would serve as a transportation fuel to compete with oil. It would prevent the price of oil from rising. Competition- and a truer free market.

It is inefficient, drives up food prices, requires government subsidies to function at all, and ruins internal combustion engines.

No thanks.

Peter1469
10-28-2012, 04:42 AM
It is inefficient, drives up food prices, requires government subsidies to function at all, and ruins internal combustion engines.

No thanks.

Sure, if you suck up to the corn lobby. Corn is one of the least effective feed stocks for alcohol fuel. One example. Take all the waste from factory farms and turn it into methanol. Not only do you get a cheap fuel source, you clean up the environment by not having all the crap flow into the water supply.

And you no thanks will soon be ignored. You won't be given a choice.

shaarona
10-28-2012, 12:38 PM
I have seen that as well. I also noticed that the Royal Family caused many of their members to disappear in the years after 9-11 as it became know they were tied to al Qaeda. Stepping up.

Really? Which members of the royal family disappeared?

Peter1469
10-28-2012, 12:59 PM
Really? Which members of the royal family disappeared?

I don't remember any of the names. It was several of them.

shaarona
10-28-2012, 01:22 PM
I don't remember any of the names. It was several of them.

None disappeared.....

Peter1469
10-28-2012, 01:45 PM
None disappeared.....

They died under "mysterious" circumstances. Technically, yes, they didn't disappear.

shaarona
10-28-2012, 05:52 PM
They died under "mysterious" circumstances. Technically, yes, they didn't disappear.

One minor prince died of a heart attack after years of heart trouble.. The other was killed driving cross country to the funeral. Nothing suspicious about either death. No conspiracy.

Peter1469
10-28-2012, 07:13 PM
One minor prince died of a heart attack after years of heart trouble.. The other was killed driving cross country to the funeral. Nothing suspicious about either death. No conspiracy.

What about the others. And I think you are buying the cover stories.

The 9-11 commission said that the attacks were supported by an unnamed nation state's intel service. That was Saudi Arabia, and they had to tied up lose ends to please the US.

shaarona
10-28-2012, 10:38 PM
What about the others. And I think you are buying the cover stories.

The 9-11 commission said that the attacks were supported by an unnamed nation state's intel service. That was Saudi Arabia, and they had to tied up lose ends to please the US.

You mean the 28 redacted pages?

The Saudis didn't do 911..

Peter1469
10-29-2012, 08:50 AM
You mean the 28 redacted pages?

The Saudis didn't do 911..

Certain members of the royal family provided intel resources to the attackers. That is why they were killed in the years following 9-11.

shaarona
10-29-2012, 09:05 AM
Certain members of the royal family provided intel resources to the attackers. That is why they were killed in the years following 9-11.

No.. they didn't.. The Saudis have huge amounts of money invested in the US .. many graduate students here .. and loved to shop and go to Disney etc.

Its possible that some faction in Pakistan was involved, but not the Saudis. Its not their mindset anyway. I was there in 2000.. and I remember the absolute consternation over the "Booze wars" that fall... Plumly was there and returned to the UK to set up Operation Mass Appeal.

The 9-11 attack was small, closely held and inexpensive.

Peter1469
10-29-2012, 09:43 AM
No.. they didn't.. The Saudis have huge amounts of money invested in the US .. many graduate students here .. and loved to shop and go to Disney etc.

Its possible that some faction in Pakistan was involved, but not the Saudis. Its not their mindset anyway. I was there in 2000.. and I remember the absolute consternation over the "Booze wars" that fall... Plumly was there and returned to the UK to set up Operation Mass Appeal.

The 9-11 attack was small, closely held and inexpensive.

I would agree that Saudi Arabia as a nation state was not involved. It was select members of the royal family. And they were murdered over the affair. I wouldn't be surprised if the Pakis were involved as well. That is why they call it transnational terrorism.