RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTubeReuters Wrote:
U.S. President George W. Bush lifted a White House ban on offshore drilling on Monday to try to drive down soaring energy prices, a largely symbolic move unlikely to have any short-term impact on high gasoline costs.Read More
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Everyday Chit Chat
offshore drilling
[45 posts] [15 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM
While I don't support this, it doesn't arouse my scorn such as talk of drilling in ANWR. I want this to mostly discuss domestic oil supply, not bikes vs. cars nor peak oil. Do we share these fields with other countries such as Mexico and Cuba. Does anyone have any knowledge of environmental impacts of deep sea drilling? I've heard at a certain depth oil actually sinks rather than floats, but images of Exxon Valdez immediately spring to mind.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
Wow. Thank you for another meaningless gesture benefiting absolutely nobody. This will certainly not benefit the president, he is leaving anyway. This will not benefit his party as it will have little impact on the price of gas to the consumer since serious speculators already know these the facts and it will be forgotten by election time. Heck, this probably won't even benefit the oil industry!
it's entirely political fiction.
yes there is oil untapped in those offshore deposits previously deemed off limits for various reasons (an act signed by Bush The Elder)
However, it is also true there is plenty of oil as yet untapped in existing oil/gas leases that, quite simply, nobody has gotten to yet. These are next on the drilling list. The oil lobby was(is) powerful enough to have already insured that the really good deposits remaining were in leases that were immune/grandfathered to the offshore drilling ban of the early 90s, such as the gulf of Mexico and the Alaska north slope fields.
it does not change the following facts one bit:
B.P. estimated world oil reserves (2006): 1300 BBO.
(including these areas under discussion)
personally I give it to 1500-1600 given luck at finding more, but that's pretty optimistic - also, lets hope demand goes down. Finding another 1000BBO is possible in theory but considered very unlikely by the experts
world oil demand = 87 BBO/year
(BBO=billion barrels of oil)
working with the B.P. estimates...
Extrapolated to 2008: 1126 BBO
Extrapolated to 2010 = 852 BBO
Extrapolated to 2021...do the math kthnxbye
Posted 3 years ago # -
th0m
Beechwold
Login to Send PM
as my dad says there are no free puppies in life, so two options:
1. sit back and watch as we reorganize our country more like europe
2. start buying as much gas as possible to drive up demand, hence lowering prices, to hell with the environment.
either option doesn't sound too bad... considering .cn's already ahead of us on #2.
Posted 3 years ago # -
heymrtough
raleigh
Login to Send PM
th0m wrote as my dad says there are no free puppies in life, so two options:
1. sit back and watch as we reorganize our country more like europe
2. start buying as much gas as possible to drive up demand, hence lowering prices, to hell with the environment.
either option doesn't sound too bad... considering .cn's already ahead of us on #2.
whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa..... increasing demand to lower prices only works if there is an unlimited supply, and there certainly is not. more demand equals higher prices, and that's why we have the high prices we do.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
CaD wrote We cant drill in our few remaining drops of oil left in Alaska like we could be, may as well drill in the Ocean.
fixed that for ya
(30-100 billion barrels =/= "massive")
Posted 3 years ago # -
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
th0m wrote as my dad says there are no free puppies in life, so two options:
1. sit back and watch as we reorganize our country more like europe
2. start buying as much gas as possible to drive up demand, hence lowering prices, to hell with the environment.
either option doesn't sound too bad... considering .cn's already ahead of us on #2.
option #1 FTW
Posted 3 years ago # -
th0m
Beechwold
Login to Send PM
heymrtough wrote whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa..... increasing demand to lower prices only works if there is an unlimited supply, and there certainly is not. more demand equals higher prices, and that's why we have the high prices we do.
hey i'm right there with ya guy, but uhh... ... i mean... i've seen *some* stats on peak oil, that we've already hit it, but no real good predictions on when it will actually run out... would you rather we stop growing food in order to grow fuel and other such free puppy ideas that won't work?
Posted 3 years ago # -
CaD
Dublin'ish
Login to Send PM
Rockmastermike wrote
CaD wrote We cant drill in our few remaining drops of oil left in Alaska like we could be, may as well drill in the Ocean.
fixed that for ya
(30-100 billion barrels =/= "massive")
Seems like there is plenty there for the amount people talk about us having so much up there thats not getting drilled.
Oil is fine, we just need that one worldwide government to take over and lay out how we are going to do things :)
Enough of these 'countries' we all live on the same planet, where is my single governing body?
Posted 3 years ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
Rockmastermike wrote
CaD wrote We cant drill in our few remaining drops of oil left in Alaska like we could be, may as well drill in the Ocean.
fixed that for ya
(30-100 billion barrels =/= "massive")
Where are you getting those figures? The median-range, mainstream estimates for ANWR's reserves I've seen peg it somewhere around 10.4 bbo; however, that is actually considered a very considerable field. At 2 mbo/day (which is what it's estimated to produce at full optimal development), that would last well over two decades. Considering that it wouldn't even start producing for 5-10 years after permission were granted, you're talking possibly 2040 before it's played out: 2015 to start, 2040 to finish. That's a long, long time in technological development terms, and I think we'll be in much better position with alternatives in 2040 than in 2008. (If we're not, we've got bigger problems.) That's an argument in favor of drilling now rather than waiting; it will buy some time to work on alternatives without lowering the price so much (as would have been the case in Clinton administration) to the point that it actually kills off work on alternatives. That won't happen now because even the lower price will still be sufficiently painful to motivate research into alternative energy sources.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrote
Rockmastermike wrote
(30-100 billion barrels =/= "massive")
Where are you getting those figures? The median-range, mainstream estimates for ANWR's reserves I've seen peg it somewhere around 10.4 bbo; however, that is actually considered a very considerable field.
the north slope is indeed the largest oil field in north america and a wise long term investment! My point was that it is not "massive" (on the scale of current usage), nor a "magic bullet" that is going to "save us all" as some people seem to think. It is not going to change the fact that we have to import at least 3/4 of our current demand. "Current demand" is the crux of the biscuit here. Lets see if I can lay this out in pieces. I am tired, so forgive me if i meander a bit...
The wide range number I cited (30-100 bbo) was adding up the entire north slope (including ANWR) all the way to Prudhoe Bay at about 10-30 bbo, and then doubling for an optimistic estimate for new finds, and other oil fields, giving a ROUGH figure at 30-100 bbo. 30 on the low end and 100 if someone gets really lucky.
the point was that 30-100 BBO out of >1000 BBO world total and isn't a "massive" field. Especially given that our total demand in the US is about 18 bbo/year Again. Not a "magic bullet".
At 2 mbo/day (which is what it's estimated to produce at full optimal development), that would last well over two decades.
yes. and 2 mbo/year is a drop in the bucket. a good start, but again not "massive". I do not think 2 mbo/year is totally unattainable for the entire north slope. But, it's not "massive". Lets double that to 4 mbo! Now we're talking almost 1.4 BBO/YEAR!
that's almost up to 1/9 of our current demand. not a magic bullet. Not even close, and its unlikely to get up that high.
But yeah, you're right. It'll last. It's just not going to make much of a dent in supply if we keep demand this high.
Considering that it wouldn't even start producing for 5-10 years after permission were granted, you're talking possibly 2040 before it's played out: 2015 to start, 2040 to finish.
right. which underscores my point, that it is a long term investment, but will not make much of a dent in supply given our current usage.
That's a long, long time in technological development terms, and I think we'll be in much better position with alternatives in 2040 than in 2008. (If we're not, we've got bigger problems.) That's an argument in favor of drilling now rather than waiting;
god i hope so. if we're not in a better position with alternatives then we will be entirely screwed.
And my point was NOT that we should not be drilling. I'm all for drilling in the current leases. Lets drill the heck out of those. The fact that those are NOT being exploited to their fullest potential speaks to a large part of the problem with the state of the industry. It smacks of hypocrisy to be demanding drilling rights to protected lands while they don't even have the capacity to handle what they already have.
No. My point was simply that it's not going to solve the current problem if we do not address demand. The ecological problems of drilling in ANWR asside, but that is another argument entirely.
it will buy some time to work on alternatives without lowering the price so much (as would have been the case in Clinton administration) to the point that it actually kills off work on alternatives. That won't happen now because even the lower price will still be sufficiently painful to motivate research into alternative energy sources.
True enough. However, the argument that it "buys time" assumes that the capacity of these fields will be able to expand to match supply lost as, for example, the gwhar field dries up, or, more likely as it is happening now, becomes too watered down from seawater pressurization methods.
That assumption simply is not true unless demand can also drastically drop off within the next 10 years. By drastic I mean Drastic. Cap D.
If those fields cannot expand enough (and they will not) then we face a situation of major scarcity we will be forced to address first. Facing it now means we might be able to cut oil demand down to the point where maybe that 1.4 bbo/year is enough. I seriously think that is possible if we work at it. Mass transit FTW.
why not start facing it NOW instead of LYING to people and telling them "oh well, we can just drill in Alaska, there's nothing to worry about"? That dog won't hunt anymore and THAT is the argument that really pisses me off.
I hope this reads coherently. I'm tired and need to go to bed. gnight!
Posted 3 years ago # -
heymrtough
raleigh
Login to Send PM
th0m wrote
heymrtough wrote whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa..... increasing demand to lower prices only works if there is an unlimited supply, and there certainly is not. more demand equals higher prices, and that's why we have the high prices we do.
hey i'm right there with ya guy, but uhh... ... i mean... i've seen *some* stats on peak oil, that we've already hit it, but no real good predictions on when it will actually run out... would you rather we stop growing food in order to grow fuel and other such free puppy ideas that won't work?
i'm not even talking about peak oil, i'm just talking about the amount that we produce/can produce. we're pretty much maxed out using all of our capacity, and building more capacity will just make the fuel cost more.
Posted 3 years ago # -
heymrtough
raleigh
Login to Send PM
th0m wrote would you rather we stop growing food in order to grow fuel and other such free puppy ideas that won't work?
also, how did you get a copy of my master's thesis? :wink:
Posted 3 years ago # -
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
heymrtough wrote
th0m wrote would you rather we stop growing food in order to grow fuel and other such free puppy ideas that won't work?
also, how did you get a copy of my master's thesis? :wink:
you did your MS on free puppies?
I want a free puppy!
(but my landlord would toss me out)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM
I think this is the single point that will position the Bush administration as one of the worst we've had. Their venality and short-sightedness is going to have us paying a heavy price both economically and strategically. And with time, it goes from bad to worse.
First off, I am not opposed in principle to drilling in ANWAR or offshore. What bothers me greatly is that since the beginning, the Bush administration has been robotically repeating whatever the oil companies have wanted. Remember the secret-membership energy commission which was even before 9/11? Going after some of our last great resources should have been coupled with a long term fossil fuel exit strategy. If we exploit ANWAR then when it is online in 2020, CAFE standards will be up 100%, X billion dollars committed to alternatives in energy and transportation, all oil used for electricity will be replaced with renewables,etc. Basically lay it out that whatever we get from these resources will last longer. If that had been laid on the table as a clear and coherent strategy, I would be extremely onboard. As it was presented and is presented, it is essentially a government giveway to a powerful industry.
This is an important issue from three prongs - peak oil, global warming and geopolitical positioning. We are failing on all three.
A.
Posted 3 years ago # -
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
Andrew Hall wrote I think this is the single point that will position the Bush administration as one of the worst we've had. Their venality and short-sightedness is going to have us paying a heavy price both economically and strategically. And with time, it goes from bad to worse.
First off, I am not opposed in principle to drilling in ANWAR or offshore. What bothers me greatly is that since the beginning, the Bush administration has been robotically repeating whatever the oil companies have wanted. Remember the secret-membership energy commission which was even before 9/11? Going after some of our last great resources should have been coupled with a long term fossil fuel exit strategy. If we exploit ANWAR then when it is online in 2020, CAFE standards will be up 100%, X billion dollars committed to alternatives in energy and transportation, all oil used for electricity will be replaced with renewables,etc. Basically lay it out that whatever we get from these resources will last longer. If that had been laid on the table as a clear and coherent strategy, I would be extremely onboard. As it was presented and is presented, it is essentially a government giveway to a powerful industry.
This is an important issue from three prongs - peak oil, global warming and geopolitical positioning. We are failing on all three.
A.
Sadly enough, their position is entirely consistent with every Bush position since they took office. Rescinding the executive order is simply a political stunt for Repug's to hammer Democrats with during the fall. Congress would have to rescinded their laws for anything to take effect, and so long as they don't, they'll get bad press from MSM parroting of Repug talking points. They've admitted as much already in the comments right after Bush rescinded the order. Got to give Repug's credit though, they march like the sweetest, most orderly bunch of political lemmings ever, driving the country over the cliffs of Dover in the process.
Peak oil is a bit of a misnomer, "tough oil" would be a more apt term, since peak implies that the last half of the world's reserves will be as easy to get at as the first half. That, in a word, is bullshit. The easy Jed Clampett pools are already being sucked dry, and what's left to take its place (though not fully replacing it) is not the light sweet crude the oil companies have always desired. There are very few easily accessible oil deposits left, meaning if you expand production into deep water wells, and ever more hostile locales, the price won't go down as a result since profitability hinges on the ease of accessible to oil, and to market. Plus, oil companies aren't stupid, they're not going to go after oil in difficult to reach places until scarcity pushes up prices to make it profitable to do so. They're also not going to over-produce to push prices back down, because there's absolutely no incentive for them to do that either.
Even if we lifted all bans on offshore drilling tomorrow, comprehensive energy analysis studies on offshore dirlling have been done and udpated and for the duration of the analysis, the gain from opening up restricted offshore areas to new leases would be a whopping 150k barrels of oil per day by 2030, with no oil expected until after 2020. Praise be, we are saved! :shock: Couple this with oil companies already holding leases to offshore areas containing a remaining 34bbo that they haven't touched, opening up more restricted areas to leases, all of which are estimated at 18bbo total, is like giving oil companies a second empty plate at the Golden Corral when they haven't even loaded up on the first one.
More troubling in this game of political gotcha that Bush is engaged in is that while our ever vigilant MSM is busy covering this non-story and hammering Dems as environment-protecting-weenies, the world is engaged in the largest transfer of economic capital ever seen, with SWFs (Soverign Wealth Funds for the layman) fully engaged in promoting national policy (see Brazil, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc) through their purchasing power (something that ought to drive those free marketers nuts - but strangely, nary a peep from their lips). When Medvedev can say with bluntness that America is in no shape to be giving advice, what with Russia sitting on 1/2 trillion in currency reserves and Gazprom's head saying to expect $250/barrel oil in the near future (eh, the fix is in), it is but a sad and true tale of just how deep a hole we've dug ourselves.
But, by all means, let's keep digging around our couch like a junkie hunting for the last few grains of black tar to shoot into our blasted national veins... A big "Fuck You" caribou, artic foxes, coral reefs, marine mammals... :x
Cue the final scene from Requiem For A Dream... :roll:
Posted 3 years ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
Rockmastermike wrote
gramarye wrote That's a long, long time in technological development terms, and I think we'll be in much better position with alternatives in 2040 than in 2008. (If we're not, we've got bigger problems.) That's an argument in favor of drilling now rather than waiting;
god i hope so. if we're not in a better position with alternatives then we will be entirely screwed.
And my point was NOT that we should not be drilling. I'm all for drilling in the current leases. Lets drill the heck out of those. The fact that those are NOT being exploited to their fullest potential speaks to a large part of the problem with the state of the industry. It smacks of hypocrisy to be demanding drilling rights to protected lands while they don't even have the capacity to handle what they already have.
Actually, all of the current leases are being explored, or have been, or are set to be. There's nothing that oil execs are just sitting on in order to drum up popular demand to drill in ANWR or the OCS. The unexplored-leases canard is just another talking point of the political season. An industry insider debunks that "idle leases" notion here (was originally in the WSJ).
No. My point was simply that it's not going to solve the current problem if we do not address demand. The ecological problems of drilling in ANWR asside, but that is another argument entirely.
Reductions in demand are not going to happen. Reductions in petroleum product use per mile traveled may happen, but total miles traveled will increase. The same applied to petroleum ingredients of consumer products other than gasoline, particularly given the rising demand from India and China. The best we can hope for is a controlled increase in demand, and even that may be more economically costly than it's worth.
it will buy some time to work on alternatives without lowering the price so much (as would have been the case in Clinton administration) to the point that it actually kills off work on alternatives. That won't happen now because even the lower price will still be sufficiently painful to motivate research into alternative energy sources.
True enough. However, the argument that it "buys time" assumes that the capacity of these fields will be able to expand to match supply lost as, for example, the gwhar field dries up, or, more likely as it is happening now, becomes too watered down from seawater pressurization methods.
No. It assumes nothing of the sort. It only assumes that we're better off with that oil on the market than without it. Whether Ghawar dries up or not is immaterial; we should be drilling whether or not that happens. (Ghawar drying up would only make it clearer that we should have been drilling, since if that dries up and we haven't been developing our own supplies, the price spike is going to make today's look tame.) Whether it's actually enough to match 100% of what we might lose from depletion of other sources or only 20%, it's better than nothing.
That assumption simply is not true unless demand can also drastically drop off within the next 10 years. By drastic I mean Drastic. Cap D.
You're right, it's not true; however, it also need not be true in order to make opening ANWR and the OCS the right move for the country.
myliftkk wrote More troubling in this game of political gotcha that Bush is engaged in is that while our ever vigilant MSM is busy covering this non-story and hammering Dems as environment-protecting-weenies, the world is engaged in the largest transfer of economic capital ever seen, with SWFs (Soverign Wealth Funds for the layman) fully engaged in promoting national policy (see Brazil, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc) through their purchasing power (something that ought to drive those free marketers nuts - but strangely, nary a peep from their lips). When Medvedev can say with bluntness that America is in no shape to be giving advice, what with Russia sitting on 1/2 trillion in currency reserves and Gazprom's head saying to expect $250/barrel oil in the near future (eh, the fix is in), it is but a sad and true tale of just how deep a hole we've dug ourselves.
Um, free marketers are definitely leery of SWF's; the criticisms are muted right now because Wall Street is in a position of weakness and a number of major players in the banking sector have had to look to such foreign funds to help replenish damaged balance sheets. Therefore, they're in the position of not being able to bite the hand that feeds them.
However, I'm really not seeing how you're making an argument against drilling in the U.S. out of the fact that SWF's are growing bloated with exported American dollars. That's precisely one of the reasons to be drilling here; every dollar paid for a barrel of oil from Alaska is one less paid for a barrel of oil from UAE or Saudi Arabia. Even if the actual price of oil doesn't come down as much as some people are hoping (and I'm fully aware that there are some very unrealistic expectations out there regarding ANWR's effects), the destination of the money matters, too. I'd much rather see it go to American companies than the Saudi government.
Posted 3 years ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.