And THERE You Have It... Why You're Paying $4+ For A Gallon Of Gas...

[jillian]

oh... he figured that drilling off the coast would make people *feel better* about the gas prices.

 

[Annie]

Saudi Arabs reserves are estimated to be around 260 bbr reserves, though most think that vastly over estimated by the Saudis, much like their population numbers.

US estimates of just offshore reserves are at 115 bbr. To not develop that, while working on alternatives would be wrong for our country and allies.

 

[Ravi]

oh... he figured that drilling off the coast would make people *feel better* about the gas prices.

Yep, I can see it now...a sludge of oil enveloping the Florida coast, the reefs destroyed, Port Everglades a toxic miasma of pollution, no more tourism, gas prices creeping close to $5 per gallon, of course we'll feel good.

 

[jillian]

Saudi Arabs reserves are estimated to be around 260 bbr reserves, though most think that vastly over estimated by the Saudis, much like their population numbers.

US estimates of just offshore reserves are at 115 bbr. To not develop that, while working on alternatives would be wrong for our country and allies.

we're talking about 10 years to get any oil and only having about a years's worth for us. it does NOTHING for oil pricees even if oil prices were legitimately based on supply and demand (which they're not) because it won't cut the demand in China and India.

Why do you want to ignore even the government's own reports on this issue? Is it a principle thing that the right wants to destroy the environment because it can?

 

[Annie]

we're talking about 10 years to get any oil and only having about a years's worth for us. it does NOTHING for oil pricees even if oil prices were legitimately based on supply and demand (which they're not) because it won't cut the demand in China and India.

Why do you want to ignore even the government's own reports on this issue? Is it a principle thing that the right wants to destroy the environment because it can?

It will help us in 10 years, just as if 10 years ago it HAD been done. This should have started in the 70's when OPEC first flexed it muscles.

 

[jillian]

It will help us in 10 years, just as if 10 years ago it HAD been done. This should have started in the 70's when OPEC first flexed it muscles.

If Bush had put as much money into alternative energies as has gone into Iraq, it would be irrelevant.

And, again, read the report. It WON'T help in 10 years....it's an irrelevancy and only exists as a means for the right to destroy the environment and enrich their oil company buddies.

If you want to know why you're paying what you're paying, it's because Cheney devised our "energy policy" in a smoke filled room with oil company execs and lobbyists.

Ever wonder why he wouldn't release the records of those meetings?

 

[Annie]

If Bush had put as much money into alternative energies as has gone into Iraq, it would be irrelevant.

And, again, read the report. It WON'T help in 10 years....it's an irrelevancy and only exists as a means for the right to destroy the environment and enrich their oil company buddies.

If you want to know why you're paying what you're paying, it's because Cheney devised our "energy policy" in a smoke filled room with oil company execs and lobbyists.

Ever wonder why he wouldn't release the records of those meetings?

Now there we have it, the 'right' is out to destroy the environment. Jillian, this is so lame.

 

[jillian]

Now there we have it, the 'right' is out to destroy the environment. Jillian, this is so lame.

You're read the government's own reports that it's a pointless endeavor. Yet, still you want to ignore that.

Me? I think the repubs will do anything to appease corporatists right now, including destroying the environment.

That's what's Lame.

 

[Ravi]

Now there we have it, the 'right' is out to destroy the environment. Jillian, this is so lame.

Only to the benefit of the bottom line of corporate profit. IMO, the right views the environment as an annoyance factor to be mastered and discarded. If there is no money to be made I imagine they'd leave the environment be.

 

[Annie]

Only to the benefit of the bottom line of corporate profit. IMO, the right views the environment as an annoyance factor to be mastered and discarded. If there is no money to be made I imagine they'd leave the environment be.

Earning a profit does not equal not caring about the environment. Right now there is oil bubbling up from the sea bottom off the coast of FL and it's no one's fault, not even the 'right.'

 

[Ravi]

Earning a profit does not equal not caring about the environment. Right now there is oil bubbling up from the sea bottom off the coast of FL and it's no one's fault, not even the 'right.'

Of course it is no one's fault. The fault lies in drilling for something without exploring the impact before doing it. Which, as far as I can tell, is what both Bush and McCain are advocating.

 

[Annie]

Of course it is no one's fault. The fault lies in drilling for something without exploring the impact before doing it. Which, as far as I can tell, is what both Bush and McCain are advocating.

They've been drilling all over the middle east for years, not to mention TX and LA. Where have you found a spill?

 

[Ravi]

They've been drilling all over the middle east for years, not to mention TX and LA. Where have you found a spill?

Spills are far from the only environmental impact. See: Hurricane Katrina. Smell the air along the Mississippi in LA.

 

[Warner]

What you're saying is, that for the bottom-line profit, oil companies won't invest in refining the oil we have. They'd rather depend on foreign sources which leaves us at those source's mercy, and forces a national concern for who is in control of the oil in the ME.

Not quite. When the oil is hard to get it is expensive - thus going after it is NOT going to reduce the cost of gas at the pump.

The recent hoopla about massive domestic oil finds concerns mostly shale-oil deposits. Oil bound up in shale is just hard to produce at all. You have to find a way to seperate the oil from the shale. Right now, to get a good return rate out of the shale we must mine the shale and then crush it, heat it to extract kerogen (a pre-oil substance), hydrogenate it (cause the kerogen to undergo a reaction with water), and then process this to get the oil and gas (this entire process is called "retorting"). If we want to pump it, we have to inject chemicals and steam and we only get a comparatively small amount of whats there using such methods. A side-effect of steam injection is it tends to drive oil into the surrounding water table, polluting it resulting in local water supplies becoming undrinkable. To solve this problem, they are now experimenting with creating a "freeze barrier" around the target deposit. This consists of drilling a ring of wells around the target area at 4-8' spacing and then pumping coolant down these wells to freeze the water table (check out the Shell Freeze Barrier Project). Of course all this freezing and heating is energy intensive - thus the oil is expensive, and the actual energy return is minimal.

I agree, something needs to be done about oil companies taking massive windfall profits when oil prices climb, but the idea that domestic production is going to solve this is erroneous.

I'm not so sure I'm with making ourselves victims of our dependence on foreign oil is worth record-setting profits by US oil companies. If we could break our dependence on ME oil, so too would we break our give-a-shitter as far as them blowing each other up.

I sort of agree. However the idea that the answer is land based domestic oil production is just silly. First off, most of our own oil is not the light-sweet crude we thrive on. Secondly, we simply don't have the rigs. Virtually ever drilling rig in the USA is working. Many production/workover rigs have been converted to drilling rigs - which is inefficient and sometimes dangerous. New rigs are coming on line as fast as possible, but that rate is not going to make a dent in supplies in the near future (the next 10 years or so).

If we want to get off ME oil, the first thing we need to do is start drilling off-shore. This will give us the capacity to supply our own needs. However, to solve our long term needs we need to get off oil entirely. This will require that we develop something like fusion power, or perhaps develop some better way of converting geo-thermal to electricity.

In the meantime, I believe that we are best off to buy as much ME oil as they will sell us. It is cheaper than trying to meet our needs using domestic production, and it is better to use up ME oil now and save ours for later. It will probably be 50+ years before we are really off of oil as our primary energy source.

 

[Annie]

Spills are far from the only environmental impact. See: Hurricane Katrina. Smell the air along the Mississippi in LA.

From what I've read, LA would like more drilling, not less.

 

[007]

Not quite. When the oil is hard to get it is expensive - thus going after it is NOT going to reduce the cost of gas at the pump.

The recent hoopla about massive domestic oil finds concerns mostly shale-oil deposits. Oil bound up in shale is just hard to produce at all. You have to find a way to separate the oil from the shale. Right now, to get a good return rate out of the shale we must mine the shale and then crush it, heat it to extract kerogen (a pre-oil substance), hydrogenate it (cause the kerogen to undergo a reaction with water), and then process this to get the oil and gas (this entire process is called "retorting"). If we want to pump it, we have to inject chemicals and steam and we only get a comparatively small amount of whats there using such methods. A side-effect of steam injection is it tends to drive oil into the surrounding water table, polluting it resulting in local water supplies becoming undrinkable. To solve this problem, they are now experimenting with creating a "freeze barrier" around the target deposit. This consists of drilling a ring of wells around the target area at 4-8' spacing and then pumping coolant down these wells to freeze the water table (check out the Shell Freeze Barrier Project). Of course all this freezing and heating is energy intensive - thus the oil is expensive, and the actual energy return is minimal.

I agree, something needs to be done about oil companies taking massive windfall profits when oil prices climb, but the idea that domestic production is going to solve this is erroneous.



I sort of agree. However the idea that the answer is land based domestic oil production is just silly. First off, most of our own oil is not the light-sweet crude we thrive on. Secondly, we simply don't have the rigs. Virtually ever drilling rig in the USA is working. Many production/workover rigs have been converted to drilling rigs - which is inefficient and sometimes dangerous. New rigs are coming on line as fast as possible, but that rate is not going to make a dent in supplies in the near future (the next 10 years or so).

If we want to get off ME oil, the first thing we need to do is start drilling off-shore. This will give us the capacity to supply our own needs. However, to solve our long term needs we need to get off oil entirely. This will require that we develop something like fusion power, or perhaps develop some better way of converting geo-thermal to electricity.

In the meantime, I believe that we are best off to buy as much ME oil as they will sell us. It is cheaper than trying to meet our needs using domestic production, and it is better to use up ME oil now and save ours for later. It will probably be 50+ years before we are really off of oil as our primary energy source.

If we got busy getting after the oil resources we have right now, by the time the ME oil started to run out, or theirs became as hard to extract as our own, the tables would turn 180 degrees. Also by that time we might have developed legitimate alternative means of power, i.e. nuclear. There's a new major find of uranium sitting practically right on the surface in Virginia. Enough to power America for millennium. If we're serious about getting off foreign oil, we're going to have to "do it all." Cutting out this possibility and that possibility just because some spin doctor says it won't help is what's foolish. When we put all the eggs in one basket we'll be moving forward. Taking options off the table one by one is simply cutting our own throats.

 

[Alpha1]

Interesting thread.....brings to light those posters that have at least a rudimentary understanding about why the US is in the position it is.....

Shogun demonstrates the enormous distance one can get his head up his ass and still post messages....say hi to jillian while you're up there lad.....