Drill, Baby, Drill!

[Deuce]

The sun will run out too so by your logic we need to stop using it and look for another energy source.

"By your logic" invariably means "let me extrapolate what you said to an absolutely absurd conclusion and attack THAT."

Fossil fuels will become economically unviable within the next century. When solar becomes economically unviable it's because the earth is no longer a habitable planet, billions of years from now. I think the fossil fuel concern is a bit more pressing right now.

 

[Southern Man]

"By your logic" invariably means "let me extrapolate what you said to an absolutely absurd conclusion and attack THAT."

Fossil fuels will become economically unviable within the next century. When solar becomes economically unviable it's because the earth is no longer a habitable planet, billions of years from now. I think the fossil fuel concern is a bit more pressing right now.

Yes, I was being a bit over the top. I admit.:tomato:

 

[Middleground]

You piece is opinion. Its a fact that as technology increases and crude prices rise deposits thought to be too expensive to produce are suddenly a bargain. "Peak Oil" is not as simple as your guy says it is.

The simple fact is that Mid-east oil is cheaper to produce right now, but there is less of it that we have here. One of the main costs associated with producing oil here is the political risk. A company can set up a well and production only to have some politician pull the plug or OPEC increase production, lowering prices. Or a new deposit can be discovered, lowing the commodity cost.

The situation with nuclear power is similar. A company can spend literally billions of dollars to build a plant only to have some judge do and end-run and nix the whole deal.

It's not an opinion piece. Click on the parts where it says "source," and it will direct you to some excellent information.

And I do agree that as prices rise, the more difficult and energy-laden types of extraction becomes more viable. A good example are the tar sands of Alberta. At this point, they are losing money but by next year, it should become more profitable. However, from what I have read, extracting oil from the sands is a walk in the park compared to the shale of the Bakkens. Read the source like that I provided... at best, some areas might get as much as 15% of extractible oil, but that is being generous.

 

[Southern Man]

It's not an opinion piece. Click on the parts where it says "source," and it will direct you to some excellent information.

And I do agree that as prices rise, the more difficult and energy-laden types of extraction becomes more viable. A good example are the tar sands of Alberta. At this point, they are losing money but by next year, it should become more profitable. However, from what I have read, extracting oil from the sands is a walk in the park compared to the shale of the Bakkens. Read the source like that I provided... at best, some areas might get as much as 15% of extractible oil, but that is being generous.

According to my link:

Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable...

My link had sources as well, yet its an "opinion piece" and yours is not. Why is that?

 

[Middleground]

I didn't see it because it was not clickable. So I took a look. Your link:

The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels.

My link:

Even if the reports are true, the 4.3 billion barrels supposedly contained within it will push the global peak back by only 2.15 billion barrels. That amounts to about one month's worth of at current levels of global demand.

All that work for an extra month's worth of oil. Is it worth it to you? Face it, the Bakken find will not solve American foreign dependency.

 

[Southern Man]

I didn't see it because it was not clickable. So I took a look. Your link:

The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels.

My link:

Even if the reports are true, the 4.3 billion barrels supposedly contained within it will push the global peak back by only 2.15 billion barrels. That amounts to about one month's worth of at current levels of global demand.

All that work for an extra month's worth of oil. Is it worth it to you? Face it, the Bakken find will not solve American foreign dependency.

The IEA estimates the deposit at 503B barrels. The US uses less than 8B per year. 503/8 = 62 years. Even at current technology and pricing (10% recoverable) and current use that's 6 years. And that's just that one deposit.

 

[NolaMan]

Anyone surprised that the "Drill More!" Crowd doesn't post?

When we talk about real math they flee.

I will respond to why I think we ought to be drilling more:

1) The figures from the OP are from 2003, A 2006 report by the Minerals Management Service (Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Assessment of 2006) estimated the "quantity of undiscovered technically recoverable resources ranges from 66.6 to 115.3 billion barrels of oil and 326.4 to 565.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas." Much of this untapped resource is located in areas that the federal government has made it illegal to drill in. 
That is increasing by the year, perhaps not significantly, but the EIA is using much lower figures than probably what is out there. There is always the additionally possibility of more being found as well.

2) Drilling will be a cash cow for the federal and state governments in terms of tax dollars.

3) Drilling will create more American private sector jobs, both in terms of manning the rig, and rig support.

4) We can argue all day about whether or not more drilling will lower the price, but ultimately I think we can agree it will play a role in price stabilization, which is just as important as lowering the price.

These are just a few reasons why I would support opening up more areas to domestic drilling. It is not because I believe it will "end our dependence on foreign oil", because it will not do so. However, it will create jobs and bring in much needed tax revenue for the federal, state, and local governments.

 

[VanceMack]

Any thinking person can recognize that we are dependent on oil and foreign oil. We HAVE oil deposits...and we have them in places that no sane person visits or wants to visit. It is logical to drill for that oil and utilize those resources.

It is also logical to make alternate fuel and power sources viable. There are some obvious obstacles to overcome but none that COULDNT be overcome. With an agressive solar plan the cost of panels and collectors could be included in new home prices with relatively minor impact to the home buyer. If we had done this in the 70's when we began debating a comprehensive energy policy we would be that much further ahead.

I dont think we will ever be 'free' of fossil fuel use (unless 'unobtainium' actually becomes a reality AND we can get the blue bastards to give it up...) however we can become FAR LESS dependent. Of course that will mean a dramatic reduction in tax revenue...but higher taxes might be sustainable without a $700.00 a year power bill.

 

[Southern Man]

Drill, windmill, nuke and solar baby!

 

[Objective Voice]

We look at oil as both a lubricant for machine parts and as fuel for transportation and energy production, but I've often wonder what negative affect extracting so much oil from the Earth has on our world globally. I don't know if there ever been some indepth study that's been done on this matter, so I'm just curious...

What is the natural purpose of oil to the Earth?

To the OP, I think this country is 30+ years overdue in looking towards alternative energy sources. So, I applaud this President for putting forth the "green" initiatives. We just can't keep depending on oil indefinitely this way. The problem is what industry will replace the number of jobs oil has produced on such a massive scale? This is the #2 reason many oil producing states (TX, AK, LA) won't give up on oil companies which falls closely behind the #1 reason we'll never be rid of oil - MONEY!!!

 

[Middleground]

The IEA estimates the deposit at 503B barrels. The US uses less than 8B per year. 503/8 = 62 years. Even at current technology and pricing (10% recoverable) and current use that's 6 years. And that's just that one deposit.

Huh? The US uses 20,680,000 bbl/day (2007)

Oil consumption (most recent) by country

 

[Southern Man]

Huh? The US uses 20,680,000 bbl/day (2007)

Oil consumption (most recent) by country

X 365 = 7.6 billion per year, which is less than 8.

 

[Deuce]

We look at oil as both a lubricant for machine parts and as fuel for transportation and energy production, but I've often wonder what negative affect extracting so much oil from the Earth has on our world globally. I don't know if there ever been some indepth study that's been done on this matter, so I'm just curious...

What is the natural purpose of oil to the Earth?

To the OP, I think this country is 30+ years overdue in looking towards alternative energy sources. So, I applaud this President for putting forth the "green" initiatives. We just can't keep depending on oil indefinitely this way. The problem is what industry will replace the number of jobs oil has produced on such a massive scale? This is the #2 reason many oil producing states (TX, AK, LA) won't give up on oil companies which falls closely behind the #1 reason we'll never be rid of oil - MONEY!!!

Asking what the "purpose" of oil in the earth is like asking what the purpose of a supernova is. It's a natural byproduct of the decay process of organic materials combined with geological forces. Whether or not there is a "purpose" to it is really more of a religious or philisophical question than a scientific one.
As for oil industry jobs, I imagine building solar panels, wind turbines, digging up uranium, building alternative-fuel cars, and rebuilding infrastructure to work with new technology will do just fine. "There's jobs in it" is not a good enough reason to do anything. Working for the sake of working doesn't benefit society any, those jobs need a useful purpose.

 

[obvious Child]

I will respond to why I think we ought to be drilling more:

1) The figures from the OP are from 2003, A 2006 report by the Minerals Management Service (Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Assessment of 2006) estimated the "quantity of undiscovered technically recoverable resources ranges from 66.6 to 115.3 billion barrels of oil and 326.4 to 565.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas." Much of this untapped resource is located in areas that the federal government has made it illegal to drill in. 
That is increasing by the year, perhaps not significantly, but the EIA is using much lower figures than probably what is out there. There is always the additionally possibility of more being found as well.

Technically recoverable doesn't mean economically recoverable. Furthermore, as I posted in the other thread, the time frame between bringing more oil to market and the compounded demand eliminates the price reduction capacity of such additional supply. Some crazies here think that we can dig a well and be filling your car with that oil within the same week. Doesn't happen that way.

2) Drilling will be a cash cow for the federal and state governments in terms of tax dollars.

No question, but that's not really what we're talking about. Uranium mines a few miles from the Grand Canyon can be cash cows. Doesn't mean we do it.

3) Drilling will create more American private sector jobs, both in terms of manning the rig, and rig support.

More then alternative energy? Especially considering the fact that the more we invest in oil the less we invest in renewable. Eventually that game is going to crash on us.

4) We can argue all day about whether or not more drilling will lower the price, but ultimately I think we can agree it will play a role in price stabilization, which is just as important as lowering the price.

The only thing it will due is reduce the price of increases. Not bring it down. Still, I'm for not drilling as it increases oil prices and creates incentives for something else. We need to get off oil if purely to stop engaging in the exchange market that favors Russia, Venezeula and Iran.

These are just a few reasons why I would support opening up more areas to domestic drilling. It is not because I believe it will "end our dependence on foreign oil", because it will not do so. However, it will create jobs and bring in much needed tax revenue for the federal, state, and local governments.

But what cost to the future? We are already years behind the Europeans and parts of Asia when it comes to renewable. We're going to be buying their stuff and funding their jobs in the long run.

 

[Objective Voice]

Asking what the "purpose" of oil in the earth is like asking what the purpose of a supernova is. It's a natural byproduct of the decay process of organic materials combined with geological forces. Whether or not there is a "purpose" to it is really more of a religious or philisophical question than a scientific one.
As for oil industry jobs, I imagine building solar panels, wind turbines, digging up uranium, building alternative-fuel cars, and rebuilding infrastructure to work with new technology will do just fine. "There's jobs in it" is not a good enough reason to do anything. Working for the sake of working doesn't benefit society any, those jobs need a useful purpose.

Thanks for your commentary; however, I think it's a legitimate question. While I'm a long way from being some environmental, tree-hugging nut job, the question was possed to me recently and I thought I'd ask it here. I did a quick online search and there seems to be two leading explainations:

1) "Oil is a carbon trap". It's basically the byproduct of decay from plant and animal life that forms over millions of years. That oil or "decay" is nature's landfill same as what man does today with our trash. We bury it! As such, those "carbon emissions" remain in the ground until they are released back into Earth's atmosphere (mostly by man rather than nature).

OR

2) It actually functions as a lubricate for the Earth's techtonic plates.

I'm leaning more towards iteam #1 than #2, but it's very possible that petrolium serves both purposes.

In any case, in the wake of this BP oil spill and since the focus of this thread is primarily "should we drill more or less", I thought the question valid for discussion. Still, you are correct in that regardless of what alternative form of energy this country adopts it would have to "touch" alot of other industries as oil does currently in order for it to be seen as a viable industry. Other than nuclear and electrical power, I really don't see an industry that could compete with oil on the same level. Yet, we can't depend on it forever. I doubt our nation's economy or national security could endure the negative implications indifinately.

 

[Deuce]

Thanks for your commentary; however, I think it's a legitimate question. While I'm a long way from being some environmental, tree-hugging nut job, the question was possed to me recently and I thought I'd ask it here. I did a quick online search and there seems to be two leading explainations:

1) "Oil is a carbon trap". It's basically the byproduct of decay from plant and animal life that forms over millions of years. That oil or "decay" is nature's landfill same as what man does today with our trash. We bury it! As such, those "carbon emissions" remain in the ground until they are released back into Earth's atmosphere (mostly by man rather than nature).

OR

2) It actually functions as a lubricate for the Earth's techtonic plates.

I'm leaning more towards iteam #1 than #2, but it's very possible that petrolium serves both purposes.

In any case, in the wake of this BP oil spill and since the focus of this thread is primarily "should we drill more or less", I thought the question valid for discussion. Still, you are correct in that regardless of what alternative form of energy this country adopts it would have to "touch" alot of other industries as oil does currently in order for it to be seen as a viable industry. Other than nuclear and electrical power, I really don't see an industry that could compete with oil on the same level. Yet, we can't depend on it forever. I doubt our nation's economy or national security could endure the negative implications indifinately.

No. Oil does not lubricate the tectonic plates. This theory is bad and you should feel bad!

 

[Objective Voice]

Why should I feel bad for asking a question? I have no motive here. It was a question possed to me by a child who's family lives next door to me. I didn't have an answer so I myself became curious and would like to know what others may think on the matter, nothing more. I see no harm in asking...

BTW, I didn't say I supported either theory, but rather that I was leaning more towards #1 being more reasonable than #2.

 

[Deuce]

Why should I feel bad for asking a question? I have no motive here. It was a question possed to me by a child who's family lives next door to me. I didn't have an answer so I myself became curious and would like to know what others may think on the matter, nothing more. I see no harm in asking...

It was paraphrasing from Futurama.
The tectonic plates go a lot deeper than that, oil doesn't lubricate them.

 

[Objective Voice]

Guess I need to watch more Futurama.

 

[The_Penguin]

It's quite obvious that debating this topic is not your priority or intention. You have yet to counter why the Bakken shale oil is garbage.

Well, neither one are very close .


Bakken Formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We'll get more than 100,000 out of that hole, but this is not some sort of panacea to the energy crisis. Furthermore, if we are reaching for such desperate measures, it shows just how up a creek we are.

 

[ptif219]

Well, neither one are very close .


Bakken Formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We'll get more than 100,000 out of that hole, but this is not some sort of panacea to the energy crisis. Furthermore, if we are reaching for such desperate measures, it shows just how up a creek we are.

We wouldn't be up a creek if the dems and environmentalist would let us drill and build refineries. I blame the dems and environmentalist for the BP oil spill since they forced BP to the deep water drilling

 

[Middleground]

We wouldn't be up a creek if the dems and environmentalist would let us drill and build refineries. I blame the dems and environmentalist for the BP oil spill since they forced BP to the deep water drilling

What would drilling accomplish, ptif219? Tell me this... if all "wacko environmentalists" decided to give carte blanche the the "drill baby drill" crowd, what would happen if all American oil sources were tapped?

 

[donsutherland1]

The US has
Peak Oil Lie - US Has Utterly Giant Oil Reserves

The blogger's commentary about the U.S. having "2 trillion barrels" of oil is incorrect. No credible data even remotely approaches that figure. For example, the USGS revealed, "The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. Scientists conducted detailed studies in stratigraphy and structural geology and the modeling of petroleum geochemistry. They also combined their findings with historical exploration and production analyses to determine the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil estimates."

The most recent proved oil reserves data showed Saudi Arabia with just under 267 billion barrels of crude oil.

 

[ptif219]

What would drilling accomplish, ptif219? Tell me this... if all "wacko environmentalists" decided to give carte blanche the the "drill baby drill" crowd, what would happen if all American oil sources were tapped?

We would be less dependent on foreign oil. This would mean the government would have to also allow refineries be built

 

[Middleground]

We would be less dependent on foreign oil. This would mean the government would have to also allow refineries be built

Maybe so, but a the current rate of consumption, not by a lot. You'll still be heavily dependent on importing oil.