Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Drew Dowdell

Just so we're clear on that whole Domestic Drilling thing

Recommended Posts

Favoring domestic drilling over alternative energy won't work because even if every last inch of public territory were open to drilling, it would add only .16 million barrels per day to the global oil supply and it wouldn't even come online till 2017 The world consumed 86 million barrels per day in 2007. In highly technical terms "drop in bucket".

Money Quote:

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy used the MMS data to assess what impact a lifting of the ban in 2012 for the Lower 48 OCS would have on U.S. oil production. Basically, the EIA estimated what fraction of the technically recoverable oil would be economical to recover, and how fast it could be produced after 2012. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. The EIA found that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf of Mexico regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil production or prices before 2030. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in EIA's "no access" reference case.

The effect of that quantity of oil on the price of oil would be indiscernible. Oil prices are determined on the international market, and the addition of about 0.16 million barrels per day from the OCS in 2030 to total world oil production would have no significant impact on oil market fundamentals. The world consumed about 86 million barrels per day in 2007, and will consume about 112 million barrels per day in 2030, according to EIA forecasts.

Thus, lifting the ban on offshore drilling will not significantly increase domestic production, nor will it put downward pressure on oil prices.

There may be other arguments for offshore drilling, such as domestic job creation and tax revenue, improved balance of payments, among others. But those are subjects for another analysis….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm personally of the opinion that we shouldn't be drilling everywhere, but keeping those reserves until oil is more like 4x more expensive than it is now (after adjusting for inflation). The focus needs to be on alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oil just hit a 13 month low today.

I can't believe so many people are looking to give the oil companies another hand-out! People would jump off the Brooklyn Bridge if Fox News said that it was good for America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on who you ask America either has enough reserves to FUEL OURSELVES @ current consumption levels from 5 to 50 years.

Alternative energy is a better long term investment, but i see no reason why our own oil companies shouldn't be able to drill around here. Additionally oil companies are VERY GOOD at developing technology to economically get very hard to get oil out of places when push comes to shove, so don't underestimate their ingenuity.

Additionally a few of the oil companies, shell in particular, are already researching various alternative energies because Shell wants to be a dominate player in the global energy game.

as it stands, solar power looks promising, but unfortunately aside from really big ass batteries i have no clue how we would store the energy for the night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm personally of the opinion that we shouldn't be drilling everywhere, but keeping those reserves until oil is more like 4x more expensive than it is now (after adjusting for inflation). The focus needs to be on alternatives.

I feel the same way. Leave it for a true crisis (as in world war, diplomacy destabilization, drastically declining reserves, etc). McCain and Palin are totally shortsighted on this issue; drilling in Alaska will do nothing for prices or demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not opposed to domestic drilling, but I question it's efficacy in the near term. I can see reducing imported oil as a worthwhile goal, but it needs to part of an overall energy plan...that includes alternative energy sources and moving away from fossil fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel the same way. Leave it for a true crisis (as in world war, diplomacy destabilization, drastically declining reserves, etc). McCain and Palin are totally shortsighted on this issue; drilling in Alaska will do nothing for prices or demand.

+1

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depending on who you ask America either has enough reserves to FUEL OURSELVES @ current consumption levels from 5 to 50 years.

Alternative energy is a better long term investment, but i see no reason why our own oil companies shouldn't be able to drill around here. Additionally oil companies are VERY GOOD at developing technology to economically get very hard to get oil out of places when push comes to shove, so don't underestimate their ingenuity.

Additionally a few of the oil companies, shell in particular, are already researching various alternative energies because Shell wants to be a dominate player in the global energy game.

as it stands, solar power looks promising, but unfortunately aside from really big ass batteries i have no clue how we would store the energy for the night.

I'm not saying we shouldn't drill... we should. However, the point of this post is that a campaign platform that is based on the phrase of "Drill baby drill!" is completely foolish.

We should be focusing on getting away from oil and drilling only being something to get us by in the meantime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not opposed to domestic drilling, but I question it's efficacy in the near term. I can see reducing imported oil as a worthwhile goal, but it needs to part of an overall energy plan...that includes alternative energy sources and moving away from fossil fuel.

The whole point is that we need to start somewhere, sometime......

IF we had begun drilling, oh, say 10 or 20 years ago......

:scratchchin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with OC. DRILL BABY DRILL. And also develope alternative I am in the all above catergory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with OC. DRILL BABY DRILL. And also develope alternative I am in the all above catergory.

<....Chris wipes his forehead....thank goodness for a fellow McCain/Palin supporter!....>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole point is that we need to start somewhere, sometime......

IF we had begun drilling, oh, say 10 or 20 years ago......

:scratchchin:

Damnit! If only I hadn't left my time machine out in the rain!

DRILLING NOW WILL NOT HELP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with OC. DRILL BABY DRILL. And also develope alternative I am in the all above catergory.

Alternative Energy should be the main thrust.....

Allowing drilling is fine, but shouldn't be a priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damnit! If only I hadn't left my time machine out in the rain!

DRILLING NOW WILL NOT HELP!

Your essentially right, but for the wrong reasons. Drilling now will not help because oil has become cheap enough where American production of it (Light sweet crude) would be more expensive than market rates. However, for heavier oils, which middle east oil is no good for, we still got an advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on another note i think we may need to start that whole natural gas drilling too before some other countries start calling dibs on offshore deposits of the stuff. its retarded how much of that has been getting imported as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are misfocusing. No one is advocating drilling INSTEAD of alternative energy- there is support for alternatives but legislative opposition (primarily from the Dems) against drilling. The claim that new drilling won't get into the system until 2012 according to the oil companies (why the hell should it take 5 years draw up paperwork, more typical Dem work ethics at play...) ignores the fact that a 'replacement' alternative energy source will take much longer- there's almost zero infrastructure in place for any of them. Waiting for a world war to hit to start drilling is madness- the same sources still point to years before it's in the barrel.

Drilling now WOULD help- that's exactly the sort of intangible the commodity markets roll on, regardless of the actual amount we're talking about (BTW, more than 1 organization has agreed it's a considerable quantity. I note that the article reduced the oil amount to a per day figure :rolleyes: in a crystal clear attempt to minimize the quantity. May have fooled some people reading it, I suppose...).

Why anyone in their right mind would OPPOSE any additional source of energy & energy independence in these times is beyond comprehension. Oh wait- is it because the Big Bad EEEVVVIILLL Oil Cos would have more oil to sell?? Want to 'make a difference' on a personal level here? Sell your damn car & bike for your groceries- that'll show XOM.

Edited by balthazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you guess what i could say?

end all subsidies (for all types of fuels) over the next five - 10 years and open up everything with a tad (reasonable, but when is the gov reasonable?) of oversight for environment reasons, ...they prolly have that oversight already.

that should slowly creep the price higher, but also as more oil becomes available after the typical 5 - 10 years getting things online, keeping the market a tad more stable (not counting natural disasters) and allowing for truly economic alt fuels to come into their own and expand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economist Greg Mankiw at Harvard has been proposing this system for a few years now: hike up the tax on fuel, and then mail out a refund of the average amount of damage done by the tax hike to every American. People will not become any poorer, and they will use less fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economist Greg Mankiw at Harvard has been proposing this system for a few years now: hike up the tax on fuel, and then mail out a refund of the average amount of damage done by the tax hike to every American. People will not become any poorer, and they will use less fuel.

That makes perfect sense. Oh wait, how much money is lost in all the wasted tax expenses and government inefficiency?

That is a regressive tax if i have ever heard one... even if it is refunded later on!

Plus... lets see... semi trucks use fuel... tax on fuel... higher transportation costs... higher end product prices... hmm no tax refund there.

Yep, that's a regressive tax all around.

Edited by Teh Ricer Civic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as it stands, solar power looks promising, but unfortunately aside from really big ass batteries i have no clue how we would store the energy for the night.

One option is a combination of solar (or wind, or whatever) and hydro. Use excess electricity to pump water back upstream into a reservoir, release it as needed to regain electricity. It's scalable and low-tech (reliable and relatively cheap to build). What I don't know is how efficient it is overall. If you're only getting 10% of the electricity back, then it's probably a lousy plan. If it's 50 or above, it might be reasonable. Overall, though, fluctuating power generation sources like wind & solar are better used as supplemental energy sources, with something with a directly controllable energy output like nuclear filling the difference in demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, Balthazar. WTFFFF!? is it that the standard knee-jerk

reaction of anyone who is opposed to drilling is:

Frogit the drillin' what we need is to fix us up some ALL-tern-Ah-tiv' enirgee.

Who in their right mind would ever oppose alternative energy?

The only case of some dope saying something against

alternative energy was some member having a blond

moment and saying wind power is not a sustainable

energy source, which is quite laughable.

Reasonable & logical.

Not when it come to gasoline or most politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who in their right mind would ever oppose alternative energy?

The oil companies and the politicians they finance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The oil companies and the politicians they finance?

right... agreed, but I was saying who (arguing for drilling s a civilian) would

NOT want to try to lower cost ($/environment) of fuel/energy?

I'm no Al Gore but I thinkk Alternative energy is way overdue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oil just hit a 13 month low today.

I can't believe so many people are looking to give the oil companies another hand-out! People would jump off the Brooklyn Bridge if CNN said that it was good for America.

*Fixed

That makes perfect sense. Oh wait, how much money is lost in all the wasted tax expenses and government inefficiency?

That is a regressive tax if i have ever heard one... even if it is refunded later on!

Plus... lets see... semi trucks use fuel... tax on fuel... higher transportation costs... higher end product prices... hmm no tax refund there.

Yep, that's a regressive tax all around.

That's what happens when you work in liberal academia.

You lose sight of reality.

Edited by FUTURE_OF_GM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depending on who you ask America either has enough reserves to FUEL OURSELVES @ current consumption levels from 5 to 50 years.

Alternative energy is a better long term investment, but i see no reason why our own oil companies shouldn't be able to drill around here. Additionally oil companies are VERY GOOD at developing technology to economically get very hard to get oil out of places when push comes to shove, so don't underestimate their ingenuity.

Additionally a few of the oil companies, shell in particular, are already researching various alternative energies because Shell wants to be a dominate player in the global energy game.

+1

on another note i think we may need to start that whole natural gas drilling too before some other countries start calling dibs on offshore deposits of the stuff. its retarded how much of that has been getting imported as well.

+1

Edited by FUTURE_OF_GM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's freakin' simple people!

All sources, right now, to prepare for any eventuality.

The key is to eliminate the importation of energy in any form asap.

Cleaning up the environment in the process is just a fringe benefit we can enjoy. The real issue is independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's freakin' simple people!

All sources, right now, to prepare for any eventuality.

The key is to eliminate the use of non-renewable energy in any form asap.

Cleaning up the environment in the process is just a fringe benefit we can enjoy. The real issue is independence.

fixed

The key to energy independence isn't the stopping of importation... it's the stopping of energy being a finite resource.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fixed

The key to energy independence isn't the stopping of importation... it's the stopping of energy being a finite resource.

I have to disagree to a point.

It is more important that the mindset of using all available domestic sources becomes entrenched first. Then, we can tackle the renewable aspect of things. Oil will be around for quite some time regardless, so I include it in the range of sources we need to maximize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did anyone like my suggestion?...other than the few that think tax payers need the gov't to spend their money for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fixed

The key to energy independence isn't the stopping of importation... it's the stopping of energy being a finite resource.

well TECHNICALLY oil is a renewable resource, we just haven't determined how fast it is created, however once we do we can totally only use that amount which would make it a renewable resource!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well TECHNICALLY oil is a renewable resource, we just haven't determined how fast it is created, however once we do we can totally only use that amount which would make it a renewable resource!

Or more likely, create a sped-up version of the process so that we don't have to wait for it to happen naturally. Kinda like some of the newer ethanol production processes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to disagree to a point.

It is more important that the mindset of using all available domestic sources becomes entrenched first. Then, we can tackle the renewable aspect of things. Oil will be around for quite some time regardless, so I include it in the range of sources we need to maximize.

It's a "two birds, one stone" problem. Even the most conservative estimates think that even if you put a drill bit in the ground tomorrow, the infrastructure wouldn't get that oil to market till 2012 at the soonest. But even once it's on the market it is still a non-renewable resource and does nothing to ween us off of using petroleum for transportation.

However, if we put a shovel in the ground tomorrow to build an algae-ethanol processing plant, it too would come online around 2012 and would be completely renewable. It would also help to accelerate the drive to non-petroleum based fuel.

Pass a law that states that by 2012, all new vehicles sold in the U.S. must be FlexFuel and that by 2016 all vehicles must be able to run pure alcohol with E85 as a backup fuel. Additionally, direct the EPA to certify conversion kits that will not violate emissions equipment laws.

The OPEC states, seeing their biggest source of funding dry up, will start dropping prices rapidly in order to thwart the process. We can have Hallmark commission a giant "f@#k You OPEC" card and we can all sign it.

Two time lines. Two paths...... one addresses the symptom... one addresses the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a "two birds, one stone" problem. Even the most conservative estimates think that even if you put a drill bit in the ground tomorrow, the infrastructure wouldn't get that oil to market till 2012 at the soonest. But even once it's on the market it is still a non-renewable resource and does nothing to ween us off of using petroleum for transportation.

However, if we put a shovel in the ground tomorrow to build an algae-ethanol processing plant, it too would come online around 2012 and would be completely renewable. It would also help to accelerate the drive to non-petroleum based fuel.

Pass a law that states that by 2012, all new vehicles sold in the U.S. must be FlexFuel and that by 2016 all vehicles must be able to run pure alcohol with E85 as a backup fuel. Additionally, direct the EPA to certify conversion kits that will not violate emissions equipment laws.

The OPEC states, seeing their biggest source of funding dry up, will start dropping prices rapidly in order to thwart the process. We can have Hallmark commission a giant "f@#k You OPEC" card and we can all sign it.

Two time lines. Two paths...... one addresses the symptom... one addresses the problem.

To be fair, both major parties have been forced to accept the reality that we must move on from oil. As for the mechanics of it, that will take some time to work out. The existing fleet alone justifies more domestic drilling - it really shouldn't be a political football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a "two birds, one stone" problem. Even the most conservative estimates think that even if you put a drill bit in the ground tomorrow, the infrastructure wouldn't get that oil to market till 2012 at the soonest. But even once it's on the market it is still a non-renewable resource and does nothing to ween us off of using petroleum for transportation.

However, if we put a shovel in the ground tomorrow to build an algae-ethanol processing plant, it too would come online around 2012 and would be completely renewable. It would also help to accelerate the drive to non-petroleum based fuel.

Pass a law that states that by 2012, all new vehicles sold in the U.S. must be FlexFuel and that by 2016 all vehicles must be able to run pure alcohol with E85 as a backup fuel. Additionally, direct the EPA to certify conversion kits that will not violate emissions equipment laws.

The OPEC states, seeing their biggest source of funding dry up, will start dropping prices rapidly in order to thwart the process. We can have Hallmark commission a giant "f@#k You OPEC" card and we can all sign it.

Two time lines. Two paths...... one addresses the symptom... one addresses the problem.

Careful there friend... That makes WAY too much sense for our government to actually execute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...