Let's drill the watermelon outta everything <redux>

[RedTop]

Here's a good read: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1834888,00.html

Good read Sandy...thanks

[lazs2]

How can it not affect speculators if you drill for offshore and ANWAR oil and add 2-20 million barrels of domestic oil into the mix?

I think that the best proof is that the price went down just on the news that we would probly drill.

We will always need oil.. it is not just for cars.. it is in almost everything we use.   It is prudent to conserve if possible but it is also prudent to make sure that we have a domestically produced supply that exceeds what we buy from other nations.

Just to get people out of their cars and into the ghettos the democrats would destroy our economy.   Nothing a socialist hates more than people not living in the big blue cities.. unless it would be armed people not living in the big blue cities.



lazs

[Hornet33]

The only possible downside to off shore drilling would be a major spill, and with todays technology I'd be willing to take the chance since the odds are in our favor of there not being a major spill.

On the plus side, it would be GREAT for the economy. Thousands of jobs would be created and those jobs would pay well for American workers. All those rigs have to be manned, pipelines have to be built, storage facilities have to be built, long term transportation requirments, new refineries or update the existing refineries. By drilling here at home we could jump start the ecomony and get this country back on track inside of 5 years because the money being spent to do the drilling would stay here in our country. All the workers being paid by the oil companies will need houses, food, cars, schools for their kids, everything, and they will spend the money they make out on the rigs and pipelines right here in the USA. That's a BIG plus to drilling domestic oil.

The predictions that it would take at least 20 years to bring the fields online is total rubish. I grew up in SW Oklahoma right in the middle of oil country. I watched an oil field come online (over 100 wells drilled), pipeline built, and storage facilities for that oil all go up in about 18 months. Off shore and ANWR would take longer due to the logistics involved but the oil companies have already been there and done that. No new technology needs to be invented, just money invested and the will to do it. Off shore rigs and pipelines could be built, in place, and producing within 2-3 years from the word go. Not 20 like the nay sayers keep spouting, that is if they'll stay the hell out of the way.

[Chalenge]

IMO the thing liberals hate most about the oil business is you cant just put kids from our education system to work on the oil rigs. They dont have the brains anymore. Same goes for nuclear plants. Those are jobs that once created will be manned by people that will never vote democrat. Thats another reason 'they' try to hit high tech job markets and tear them apart with high tax structures. Once you lose your high tech job because the market goes overseas you either work along 'party members' or you are forced onto entitlement programs. Then once they have control of where your money comes from you either vote for them or cease to exist. True Marxist thinking.

[Nashwan]

I find it funny how these guys say it will be 20 years before any of that oil will be brought up.

Is anybody saying that? Production is expected to peak about 20 years after work begins, but oil should start flowing within about 5 years.

It's just there won't be very much oil. Lazs' figures are plucked from thin air.

The EIA estimates about 200,000 barrels a day, peak, from offshore in the lower 48, and about 800,000 barrels a day peak from ANWR. IIRC they are saying 10 years for ANWR to begin production, 5 years for offshore.

Off shore rigs and pipelines could be built, in place, and producing within 2-3 years from the word go

2 - 3 years is a bit optimistic. Take as an example Shell's Perdido field. They drilled test wells in 2004, started construction on the platform in 2006, anchored the platform in place recently and expect production to begin in 2010.

[Shifty]

The only possible downside to off shore drilling would be a major spill, and with todays technology I'd be willing to take the chance since the odds are in our favor of there not being a major spill.

Most of the major spills are not caused by drilling they're caused by transporting the oil. The closer you drill to the refinery, the less distance the tanker has to travel and that lessens the chance an accident causing a spill. Not to mention you save oil the transport isn't burning up traveling halfway around the world from the Middle east.

[lazs2]

If you don't explore for the oil then how do you know how many millions of barrels a day of oil is out there?

even 1-2 million barrels a day in 2-5 years is a huge help.   why not do it?

There may be fields that surpass all the oil that has been discovered so far.

lazs

[john9001]

If you don't explore for the oil then how do you know how many millions of barrels a day of oil is out there?

even 1-2 million barrels a day in 2-5 years is a huge help.   why not do it?

There may be fields that surpass all the oil that has been discovered so far.

lazs

true

[Chalenge]

Is anybody saying that? ...

From the article cited from 'RealClearPolitics' in the original posters message:

It will do nothing for today's or tomorrow's pump prices. The U.S. Energy Department says it: Drilling in these previously banned offshore areas "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."

That sure looks like someone says 20 years from now.

[Baitman]

There may be fields that surpass all the oil that has been discovered so far.

lazs

That is a lot of oil you are joking again RIGHT.

[lazs2]

not really..  we have explored only a tiny portion of the planet and it seems that oil was/is being made everywhere.     Ok... say it is somewhere between several hundred million gallons a day and more than has ever been discovered so far.

There is no way to know if we don't look.   To dismiss the very real possibility that there is hundreds of millions of gallons a day just waiting to be discovered is foolish in the extreme..  or... agenda driven.

lazs

[bongaroo]

So what is your non-agenda estimate for how long until we hit the peak lazs(the point where we will slowly be only able to refine less and less instead of more)?

For those interested here is some well laid out data:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=US

[john9001]

how do you know what is there until you look for it and find or don't find it?

did they know there was gold in cal before they found it?

did they know there was oil in alaska before they found it?

[Nashwan]

From the article cited from 'RealClearPolitics' in the original posters message:

It will do nothing for today's or tomorrow's pump prices. The U.S. Energy Department says it: Drilling in these previously banned offshore areas "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."

That sure looks like someone says 20 years from now.

That's saying there won't be a significiant impact on prices for 20 years, not that oil won't start flowing for 20 years.

I believe EIA's analysis shows there won't be a significant impact on prices at all. A peak of 1 million barrels a day, when the world already consumes 85 million a day, won't lower prices by much. In fact by 2030 we'd better have got oil production about 100 million barrels a day or we'll be in real trouble.

If you don't explore for the oil then how do you know how many millions of barrels a day of oil is out there?

Because you don't have to drill test wells to have some idea where oil is to be found. Western oil companies have been prospecting for oil for over a century, they have a pretty good idea what sort of rock formations hold it.

even 1-2 million barrels a day in 2-5 years is a huge help.

Again you are making up numbers. The forecast is 1 million  barrels a day in 20 years, nothing in 2 years and possibly 100,000 barrels a day in 5 years.

why not do it?

I think they should. The counter argument would be that it will raise unreasonable expectations, which will cause people not to try so hard to conserve oil now. With the talk of 2 million barrels a day in 2 years, and the silly claims that the president caused the oil price to fall $30 a barrel just by signing the bill, that argument makes a lot of sense.

I think they should allow drilling in ANWR and the OCS. I just think people should realise it's not going to make much difference in the grand scheme of things.

There may be fields that surpass all the oil that has been discovered so far.

I doubt it. All the super fields were discovered a long time ago.

Ghawar in Saudi was discovered in 1948, Samotlor in Russia in 1965, Burgan (Kuwait) in 1938, Cantarell (Mexico) in 1976. There haven't been really major discoveries for a long time.

Put simply the oil companies have a rough idea where to look, and they've already looked in the good places. There is oil out there, but it tends to be in much smaller fields. That's why the amount of oil discovered these days is way down on the heydays of the 50s and 60s.

[indy007]

You don't actually drill down to look for oil. I guess you could... but it's kind of a waste of effort. You roll out the seismic truck, fire it off, and very clever software gives you a graphical display of what's there.