What energy do you see us using in 30 years?

[MoSurveyor]

Oil comps pay for leases on fed land, the tax payers get that tax plus royalties plus employment plus oil. We win.

The employment aspects aren't going to change. Oil companies have increased production almost 15% since 2008 after an eight year downward trend that reduced output by a little over 15%. As of 2011 we're almost back to where we were in 2001 before it started to slide. Plenty of employment, plenty of oil, plenty of oil taxes. The leases money is peanuts.

 

[MoSurveyor]

It will provide employment in the US both in construction, maintenance and refining. Speaking of employment and using oil I better get out and fire up my fossil fuel powered saw mill and get to work.:2wave:

The tell Nebraska to get off it's ass and get things settled! They're still screwing around over this.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Paying people to build roads and bridges with money borrowed from China is not the answer. Paying people to produce gas and oil that makes companies profits fuels the economy, and increases tax revenues instead of increasing the deficit. See the difference?

Either way, people are being payed with borrowed money, as the gas and oil isn't going to produce revenues for a few years. Either way, they are doing a job that needs to be done. That oil and gas isn't going to do us any good without roads, after all.

But, you do have a point: Paying people with borrowed money is nothing but a short term solution, and if they don't earn enough to get the economy going again, then it's money that isn't coming back.

There is no easy solution to the economic woes we're experiencing currently, no magic bullet that will make things all better and get people back to work again. If the federal government could get the country back on track just by opening up more federal lands to oil exploration, that would be a no brainer. Unfortunately, it just isn't that easy.

 

[Matt Foley]

Who remembers the OPEC oil crisis? When the cost of oil went up significantly, it triggered inflation,

How is that possible when oil was price capped and rationed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis#Price_controls_and_rationing

 

[Dittohead not!]

How is that possible when oil was price capped and rationed?

1973 oil crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was a great idea, wasn't it?

Government price controls further exacerbated the crisis in the United States,[27] which limited the price of "old oil" (that already discovered) while allowing newly discovered oil to be sold at a higher price, resulting in a withdrawal of old oil from the market and the creation of artificial scarcity. The rule also discouraged alternative energies or more efficient fuels or technologies from being developed.[27] The rule had been intended to promote oil exploration.[30] This scarcity was dealt with by rationing of gasoline (which occurred in many countries), with motorists facing long lines at gas stations beginning in summer 1972 and increasing by summer 1973.

It should have served to show that (1) price controls don't work, and (2) the USA can't control the global price of oil.

But, still we have some saying that if we'd only "drill, baby drill", that the price would come down that way.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Either way, people are being payed with borrowed money, as the gas and oil isn't going to produce revenues for a few years. Either way, they are doing a job that needs to be done. That oil and gas isn't going to do us any good without roads, after all.

But, you do have a point: Paying people with borrowed money is nothing but a short term solution, and if they don't earn enough to get the economy going again, then it's money that isn't coming back.

There is no easy solution to the economic woes we're experiencing currently, no magic bullet that will make things all better and get people back to work again.

If the federal government could get the country back on track just by opening up more federal lands to oil exploration, that would be a no brainer.

Unfortunately, it just isn't that easy.

The feds can't get the economy up and running JUST by opening up fed lands, theres alot of other things too but since this threads about energy I concentrated on this one true stimulus plan associated with energy.

 

[MoSurveyor]

The feds can't get the economy up and running JUST by opening up fed lands, theres alot of other things too but since this threads about energy I concentrated on this one true stimulus plan associated with energy.

U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)

2001 2,117,511
2002 2,097,124
2003 2,073,453
2004 1,983,302
2005 1,890,106
2006 1,862,259
2007 1,848,450
2008 1,811,817

2009 1,956,596
2010 2,001,082
2011 2,078,479

U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels) | eia.gov

 

[sawyerloggingon]

U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)

2001 2,117,511
2002 2,097,124
2003 2,073,453
2004 1,983,302
2005 1,890,106
2006 1,862,259
2007 1,848,450
2008 1,811,817

2009 1,956,596
2010 2,001,082
2011 2,078,479

U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels) | eia.gov

Thats great but it comes from private, state and fed ground opened up under Bush. Obama has done virtualy nothing to get more fed leases approved. He opened some for exploration whuch was just a smoke and mirrors PR move.

CNSNews.com) – While President Obama has been touting in recent days that his administration is promoting oil drilling in the United States, oil production on federally owned lands has in fact declined by 17,000 barrels per day since he took office in 2009.

This figure comes from a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on domestic energy production. That report found that domestic oil production fluctuates from year-to-year, on both federal and non-federal lands. But 96 percent of the increase in production since 2007 has taken place on non-federal lands


Oil Production on Federal Lands Has Declined Under Obama | CNSNews.com

 

[rocket88]

The feds can't get the economy up and running JUST by opening up fed lands, theres alot of other things too but since this threads about energy I concentrated on this one true stimulus plan associated with energy.

See, a stimulus plan. Are you basically telling us that you would have supported stimulus if Obama had given it to oil companies?

Why not automakers? Autos use oil.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The feds can't get the economy up and running JUST by opening up fed lands, theres alot of other things too but since this threads about energy I concentrated on this one true stimulus plan associated with energy.

The feds probably can't get the economy up and running at all. There are a few things they might do to help it along, but the economy is not run by the government.

and yes, no doubt more oil and gas exploration would be a small help.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

See, a stimulus plan. Are you basically telling us that you would have supported stimulus if Obama had given it to oil companies?

Why not automakers? Autos use oil.

The big difference is obama would not have given a dime to oil company's, in fact they would have paid us for the lease, then royalties and most importantly employed people, lots of people. These people would in turn pay taxes on money earned from a profit made by the oil company's, everybody wins. How on earth can you equate this with handing GM millions of dollars of money borrowed from China we all now pay interest on?Good grief man, get a grip.

 

[Catawba]

Mitigation of peak oil

"The mitigation of peak oil is the attempt to delay the date and minimize the social and economic impact of peak oil by reducing the world's consumption and reliance on petroleum."

"For the most part, mitigation involves fuel conservation, and the use of alternative and renewable energy sources. The development of unconventional oil resources can extend the use of petroleum,[2] but does not reduce consumption."

"The most effective method of mitigating peak oil is to use renewable or alternative energy sources in place of petroleum."

"China is preparing for the post-peak oil future by building pebble bed reactors configured to produce hydrogen fuel from the electrolysis of water. The use of nuclear power is often a highly contentious issue because of questions of the future availability of fuel and the dangerous nature of nuclear waste. Some current research projects are focused on neutron-free fusion power, in which hydrogen and boron are heated to over 1 billion degrees,[7] though technical and economic barriers still exist."

"When alternative fuels are not available, the development of more energy efficient vehicles becomes an important mitigant. Some ways of decreasing the oil used in transportation include increasing the use of bicycles, public transport, carpooling, electric vehicles, and diesel and hybrid vehicles with higher fuel efficiency.

More comprehensive mitigations include better land use planning through smart growth to reduce the need for private transportation, increased capacity and use of mass transit, vanpooling and carpooling,[21] bus rapid transit, telecommuting, and human-powered transport from current levels.[22] Rationing and driving bans are also forms of reducing private transportation.[21] The higher oil prices of 2007 and 2008 caused United States drivers to begin driving less in 2007 and to a much greater extent in the first three months of 2008.[3][4]

In order to deal with potential problems from peak oil, Colin Campbell has proposed the Rimini protocol, a plan which among other things would require countries to balance oil consumption with their current production."

Mitigation of peak oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MoSurveyor]

Thats great but it comes from private, state and fed ground opened up under Bush. Obama has done virtualy nothing to get more fed leases approved. He opened some for exploration whuch was just a smoke and mirrors PR move.

CNSNews.com) – While President Obama has been touting in recent days that his administration is promoting oil drilling in the United States, oil production on federally owned lands has in fact declined by 17,000 barrels per day since he took office in 2009.

This figure comes from a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on domestic energy production. That report found that domestic oil production fluctuates from year-to-year, on both federal and non-federal lands. But 96 percent of the increase in production since 2007 has taken place on non-federal lands

Oil Production on Federal Lands Has Declined Under Obama | CNSNews.com

That's not news to me - I said as much in post #324. :shrug:

 

[MoSurveyor]

The big difference is obama would not have given a dime to oil company's, in fact they would have paid us for the lease, then royalties and most importantly employed people, lots of people. These people would in turn pay taxes on money earned from a profit made by the oil company's, everybody wins. How on earth can you equate this with handing GM millions of dollars of money borrowed from China we all now pay interest on?Good grief man, get a grip.

The employment situation would be no different in the oil industry. They dropped production for years under Bush but have been increasing production for the past 3 years. More production equals more jobs. How much they're producing wouldn't change one bit if it was all on public land instead of private leases.

You think they don't have many, many more private leases out there to use?
You think if they could make more money using them they wouldn't be using them?
You think all the private oil has already run dry and the only thing left is public land oil?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

The employment situation would be no different in the oil industry. They dropped production for years under Bush but have been increasing production for the past 3 years. More production equals more jobs. How much they're producing wouldn't change one bit if it was all on public land instead of private leases.

You think they don't have many, many more private leases out there to use?
You think if they could make more money using them they wouldn't be using them?
You think all the private oil has already run dry and the only thing left is public land oil?[/

QUOTE]

Can you back that up with facts? It sounds like empty rhetoric to me. What I think is the feds have alot of very productive oil fields locked up that oil comps want in, the coast of calif comes to mind for one.

"Nearly a year after a BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico and created one of the largest environmental catastrophes of all time, federal lawmakers are considering encouraging drilling off the West Coast, including the rich oil beds off Southern California.

Lawmakers say allowing the drilling would ease the burden of high oil prices and provide an alternative to foreign oil.
Supporters, including the Energy Nation, an oil industry advocacy group, say the bills will produce more domestic oil and gas, create jobs, provide revenue for the government and secure the country's energy future."

California Oil Drilling: Congress Considers Offshore Drilling

 

[MoSurveyor]

Can you back that up with facts? It sounds like empty rhetoric to me. What I think is the feds have alot of very productive oil fields locked up that oil comps want in, the coast of calif comes to mind for one.

"Nearly a year after a BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico and created one of the largest environmental catastrophes of all time, federal lawmakers are considering encouraging drilling off the West Coast, including the rich oil beds off Southern California.

Lawmakers say allowing the drilling would ease the burden of high oil prices and provide an alternative to foreign oil.
Supporters, including the Energy Nation, an oil industry advocacy group, say the bills will produce more domestic oil and gas, create jobs, provide revenue for the government and secure the country's energy future."

California Oil Drilling: Congress Considers Offshore Drilling

You asserted that oil companies would be employing "lots of people" if the public lands were opened up and you have shown nothing to prove that - nor did you bother defining what "lots of people" means. It's not up to me to prove your negative.


Well of course they want in - what kind of stupidity is that?!? The more they can take the better off they are. I'm sure you would jump all over the chance to come down here and start stripping the Mark Twain National Forest, too. AND? :roll:

 

[sawyerloggingon]

You asserted that oil companies would be employing "lots of people" if the public lands were opened up and you have shown nothing to prove that -

nor did you bother defining what "lots of people" means. It's not up to me to prove your negative.


Well of course they want in - what kind of stupidity is that?!? The more they can take the better off they are. I'm sure you would jump all over the chance to come down here and start stripping the Mark Twain National Forest, too. AND? :roll:

Guess you missed this part.

"Supporters, including the Energy Nation, an oil industry advocacy group, say the bills will produce more domestic oil and gas, create jobs, provide revenue for the government and secure the country's energy future."

 

[MoSurveyor]

Guess you missed this part.

"Supporters, including the Energy Nation, an oil industry advocacy group, say the bills will produce more domestic oil and gas, create jobs, provide revenue for the government and secure the country's energy future."

You mean the rhetoric by the oil industry's advocacy group? You think that's proof? Hell, my post provides that much 'proof' if that's all you need! I said it so it must be true - and I'm not being paid to say it, which might make my position a little better than theirs.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

You mean the rhetoric by the oil industry's advocacy group? You think that's proof? Hell, my post provides that much 'proof' if that's all you need! I said it so it must be true - and I'm not being paid to say it, which might make my position a little better than theirs.

What it proves is oil company's want access to more oil, something you said they had on private land but didn't use. If you think the Calif coast was opened up and the oil comps wouldn't immediately start operations I don't know what to say. Oh wait, you don't think that at all, you said this earlier.


"Well of course they want in - what kind of stupidity is that?!? The more they can take the better off they are."

So, sometimes you say oil company's won't drill, sometimes you say of course they will drill, sounds a bit bi-polar.

 

[MoSurveyor]

What it proves is oil company's want access to more oil, something you said they had on private land but didn't use. If you think the Calif coast was opened up and the oil comps wouldn't immediately start operations I don't know what to say. Oh wait, you don't think that at all, you said this earlier.

"Well of course they want in - what kind of stupidity is that?!? The more they can take the better off they are."

So, sometimes you say oil company's won't drill, sometimes you say of course they will drill, sounds a bit bi-polar.

Then you haven't been reading.

Why would the oil companies continue drilling and pumping on their own land when they can drill and pump on Our land? They can always drill/pump on their land but may not always have access to Ours.

Quit acting so dense.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Then you haven't been reading.

Why would the oil companies continue drilling and pumping on their own land when they can drill and pump on Our land? They can always drill/pump on their land but may not always have access to Ours.

Quit acting so dense.

So now you are asserting oil company's own the land they currently drill on. Can you give some documentation of this, the percentage of land they drill on that they actually own? If they own any at all I would be surprised. In a previous post you spouted a bunch of claims you couldn't back up, I suspect you are doing it again. Do you ever get tired of being caught in these fabrications?

 

[EagleAye]

The employment situation would be no different in the oil industry. They dropped production for years under Bush but have been increasing production for the past 3 years. More production equals more jobs. How much they're producing wouldn't change one bit if it was all on public land instead of private leases.

Lawmakers say allowing the drilling would ease the burden of high oil prices and provide an alternative to foreign oil.
Supporters, including the Energy Nation, an oil industry advocacy group, say the bills will produce more domestic oil and gas, create jobs, provide revenue for the government and secure the country's energy future."

California Oil Drilling: Congress Considers Offshore Drilling

I note that this is very carefully worded. More oil production hasn't done much to help most Americans. The price of oil stays the same, the price of gas continues to climb. Of course petroleum companies want to drill on public land. They can get more oil that still costs the same, refine it into gasoline, and export it all to other countries. WE don't get any of it. Those foreign countries reap the benefit of "drill baby drill" from an American natural resource, and Americans get damned near nothing out of the bargain. Great. This is a good idea, how?

 

[longview]

I note that this is very carefully worded. More oil production hasn't done much to help most Americans. The price of oil stays the same, the price of gas continues to climb. Of course petroleum companies want to drill on public land. They can get more oil that still costs the same, refine it into gasoline, and export it all to other countries. WE don't get any of it. Those foreign countries reap the benefit of "drill baby drill" from an American natural resource, and Americans get damned near nothing out of the bargain. Great. This is a good idea, how?

America does get an export of something we still make, The Drilling, transporting, and refining of oil,
all provide high paying jobs. Those employees would pay a lot of taxes.
I don't think squeezing all of the oil out of public land is good idea to do "Now",
but at some point the discussion will have it's merits.
I think the oil companies pay less for public leases than private ones,

 

[EagleAye]

America does get an export of something we still make, The Drilling, transporting, and refining of oil,
all provide high paying jobs. Those employees would pay a lot of taxes.
I don't think squeezing all of the oil out of public land is good idea to do "Now",
but at some point the discussion will have it's merits.
I think the oil companies pay less for public leases than private ones,

Yes, we do get jobs out of the bargain, and that will affect the lives of what, 5,000 workers, maybe 8,000? Certainly, they'll be happy. But the rest of us 300,000,000 Americans were really hoping on cheaper gas as our part of the benefit from using American resources. We aren't seeing it.

Clearly, the US strategy has been to use someone else's oil instead of our own. Largely, this has been a good one, but our gigantic reliance on oil has reversed this effect. Now we're at the mercy of an international market with players that would love to see the US fail. Oil is incredibly useful and will be for another century or more. So we still need to preserve our own resource, while at the same time cease being at the mercy of a hostile international market. That means finding alternatives. We'll not stop using oil for a very very long time, we just need to change how we use it.

 

[MoSurveyor]

So now you are asserting oil company's own the land they currently drill on. Can you give some documentation of this, the percentage of land they drill on that they actually own? If they own any at all I would be surprised. In a previous post you spouted a bunch of claims you couldn't back up, I suspect you are doing it again. Do you ever get tired of being caught in these fabrications?

Quit being dense, you know full damn well what I"m talking about. But I really don't care if you want to attempt to blow it off or not. The damn-asses you quoted are being paid to promote the oil companies and their businesses, which means anything they say without documentation is pure PR and/or BS. If you don't think it's PR and/or BS you are more than welcome to provide proof of their assertions instead of providing PR and/or BS of your own.