Drillers - School Is In Session

[wihosa]

So, you believe in drilling.

OK, here's what drilling will get us, now try to pay attention, this is according to the "World Fact Book" written by the CIA.

US proven oil reserves are 21.76 billion barrels.
US daily consumption is 20.73 million barrels a day.(2004 numbers)
Of that the US Imports about 60% or 12.41 million barrels a day.(T.Boone says its almost 70%)
So if we exploited all proven reserves tomorrow (an impossability) we could be free of imported oil for about 4.8 years after which we would have no oil reserves and would be importing 100% of our oil. Even if we explored under every square foot of America and could somehow double our national reserves (very doubtful) that would only give us less than ten years at which point we would be entirely dependent on imported oil and without any reserves.

Finally, what makes you think that if we did exploit our reserves that America would get any of that oil? It wouldn't belong to America, it would belong to the multi national oil corps. who will simply sell it to the highest bidder, China, India, whoever.

 

[Annie]

So, you believe in drilling.

OK, here's what drilling will get us, now try to pay attention, this is according to the "World Fact Book" written by the CIA.

US proven oil reserves are 21.76 billion barrels.
US daily consumption is 20.73 million barrels a day.(2004 numbers)
Of that the US Imports about 60% or 12.41 million barrels a day.(T.Boone says its almost 70%)
So if we exploited all proven reserves tomorrow (an impossability) we could be free of imported oil for about 4.8 years after which we would have no oil reserves and would be importing 100% of our oil. Even if we explored under every square foot of America and could somehow double our national reserves (very doubtful) that would only give us less than ten years at which point we would be entirely dependent on imported oil and without any reserves.

Finally, what makes you think that if we did exploit our reserves that America would get any of that oil? It wouldn't belong to America, it would belong to the multi national oil corps. who will simply sell it to the highest bidder, China, India, whoever.

'Snake Oil' - washingtonpost.com

'Snake Oil'
Debunking three 'truths' about offshore drilling

Tuesday, August 12, 2008; A12

THE NATURAL Resources Defense Council Action Fund has taken out full-page ads in this newspaper and others to decry offshore drilling for oil as "George W. Bush's Gasoline Price Elixir" that is "100% Snake Oil." The environmental group calls on supporters "to stop the giveaway of our coasts." It is urging visitors to its Web site to send a pre-written letter to their members of Congress that says, "I am not buying the lie . . . that sacrificing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and America's coastal waters to oil drilling would make a real difference in gas prices -- either today or twenty years from today!" And the missive adds, "With just three percent of the world's oil reserves, our nation simply doesn't have enough oil to impact the global market or drill our way to lower prices at the pump."

The NRDC's arguments above neatly encapsulate the position taken by environmentalists and other opponents of offshore drilling. And they include a couple of good points. Contrary to the baldly political suggestions regarding lower gasoline prices by President Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), drilling would make no impact on today's pain at the pump because it would be years before any oil flowed from the Outer Continental Shelf. We agree that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with its varied and sensitive ecosystems, should be preserved. In the quest for new sources of energy, there are trade-offs. That pristine area must remain off-limits. But there are three "truths" masquerading as fact among drilling opponents that need to be challenged:

· Drilling is pointless because the United States has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves.This is a misleading because it refers only to known oil reserves. According to the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS), while there are an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil in the off-limits portions of the OCS, those estimates were made using old data from now-outdated seismic equipment. In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, the data were collected before Congress imposed a moratorium on offshore drilling in 1981. In 1987, the MMS estimated that there were 9 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. By 2006, after major advances in seismic technology and deepwater drilling techniques, the MMS resource estimate for that area had ballooned to 45 billion barrels. In short, there could be much more oil under the sea than previously known. The demand for energy is going up, not down. And for a long time, even as alternative sources of energy are developed, more oil will be needed.

· The oil companies aren't using the leases they already have. According to the MMS, there were 7,457 active leases as of June 8. Of those, only 1,877 were classified as "producing." As we pointed out in a previous editorial, the five leases that have made up the Shell Perdido project off Galveston since 1996 are not classified as producing. Only when it starts pumping the equivalent of an estimated 130,000 barrels of oil a day at the end of the decade will it be deemed "active." Since 1996, Shell has paid rent on the leases; filed and had approved numerous reports with the MMS, including an environmentally sensitive resource development plan and an oil spill recovery plan that is subject to unannounced practice runs by the MMS; drilled several wells to explore the area at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars; and started constructing the necessary infrastructure to bring the oil to market. The notion that oil companies are just sitting on oil leases is a myth. With oil prices still above $100 a barrel, that charge never made sense.

· Drilling is environmentally dangerous. Opposition to offshore drilling goes back to 1969, when 80,000 barrels of oil from an offshore oil well blowout washed up on the beaches of Santa Barbara. In 1971, the Interior Department instituted a host of reporting requirements (such as the resource development and oil spill recovery plans mentioned above) and stringent safety measures. Chief among them is a requirement for each well to have an automatic shut-off valve beneath the ocean floor that can also be operated manually. According to the MMS, between 1993 and 2007, there were 651 spills of all sizes at OCS facilities (in federal waters three miles or more offshore) that released 47,800 barrels of oil. With 7.5 billion barrels of oil produced in that time, that equates to 1 barrel of oil spilled per 156,900 barrels produced. That's not to minimize the danger. But no form of energy is perfect or without trade-offs. Besides, if it is acceptable to drill in the Caspian Sea and in developing countries such as Nigeria where environmental concerns are equally important, it's hard to explain why the United States should rule out drilling off its own coasts.

The strongest argument against drilling is that it could distract the country from a pursuit of alternative sources of energy. There's no question that the administration has been lax on that front. True leadership would emphasize both alternative sources and rational approaches to developing oil and natural gas. No, the United States cannot drill its way to energy independence. But with the roaring economies of China and India gobbling up oil in the two countries' latter-day industrial revolutions, the United States can no longer afford to turn its back on finding all the sources of fuel necessary to maintain its economy and its standard of living. What's required is a long-term, comprehensive plan that includes wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and nuclear -- and that acknowledges that oil and gas will be instrumental to the U.S. economy for many years to come.

 

[Bern80]

So, you believe in drilling.

OK, here's what drilling will get us, now try to pay attention, this is according to the "World Fact Book" written by the CIA.

US proven oil reserves are 21.76 billion barrels.
US daily consumption is 20.73 million barrels a day.(2004 numbers)
Of that the US Imports about 60% or 12.41 million barrels a day.(T.Boone says its almost 70%)
So if we exploited all proven reserves tomorrow (an impossability) we could be free of imported oil for about 4.8 years after which we would have no oil reserves and would be importing 100% of our oil. Even if we explored under every square foot of America and could somehow double our national reserves (very doubtful) that would only give us less than ten years at which point we would be entirely dependent on imported oil and without any reserves.

Finally, what makes you think that if we did exploit our reserves that America would get any of that oil? It wouldn't belong to America, it would belong to the multi national oil corps. who will simply sell it to the highest bidder, China, India, whoever.

This is fairly deceiving. Because if one assumes technology will improve the areas of windpower, solar power and non-gas cars one must assume that technology will also improve in areas of oil refining, exploration and drilling.

Based on that it is estimated that in the U.S. and offshore there are 250 billion barrels of 'potentially recoverable' oil. This doesn't count shale oil which is being researched to the extent in can be used as fuel. Oil shale in the U.S. is estimated at 2,175 gigabarrels

The problem with this discussion is on both sides probably. The potential of all that oil may be overrated. But so is probably your belief in wind and solar.

 

[wihosa]

This is fairly deceiving. Because if one assumes technology will improve the areas of windpower, solar power and non-gas cars one must assume that technology will also improve in areas of oil refining, exploration and drilling.

Based on that it is estimated that in the U.S. and offshore there are 250 billion barrels of 'potentially recoverable' oil. This doesn't count shale oil which is being researched to the extent in can be used as fuel. Oil shale in the U.S. is estimated at 2,175 gigabarrels

The problem with this discussion is on both sides probably. The potential of all that oil may be overrated. But so is probably your belief in wind and solar.

Based on whose estimate? Where did you get that figure (250 billion bbl)?

As for oil shale, this is another decption. The cost of refining oil shale even at today's sky high prices of oil makes it economically infeasible, not to mention that in order to exploit oil shale you have to strip mine. There is no more ecologically damaging mining than strip mining.

 

[Bern80]

Based on whose estimate? Where did you get that figure (250 billion bbl)?

As for oil shale, this is another decption. The cost of refining oil shale even at today's sky high prices of oil makes it economically infeasible, not to mention that in order to exploit oil shale you have to strip mine. There is no more ecologically damaging mining than strip mining.

That cost of wind turbines and tranporting the energy currently also makes them unfeasable

This is where I came up with the numbers.

Oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Denny Crane]

That cost of wind turbines and tranporting the energy currently also makes them unfeasable

Do you have a source for that comment? It seems that Maine is crawling with energy investment groups looking to put wind turbines all across our state. In one area of northern Maine they are currently negotiating to put 400 of them up.

 

[wihosa]

That cost of wind turbines and tranporting the energy currently also makes them unfeasable

This is where I came up with the numbers.

Oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Going to half to be more specific, I looked but found no mention of 250 bil bbl.

Clearly you need more schooling.

The oil companies want to keep us dependent on their oil because that way we have to pay them for fuel. You do realize that the wind is free, don't you? As is sunlight. After installing a wind turbine the cost is very low, basically maintenance (which is minimal since there is only one moving part). Electric generators are as reliable as electric motors. With a conventional power plant you GET to buy oil every day!

What part of free don't you get?

 

[wihosa]

Do you have a source for that comment? It seems that Maine is crawling with energy investment groups looking to put wind turbines all across our state. In one area of northern Maine they are currently negotiating to put 400 of them up.

That's right, wind farms are popping up all over the place, there are a number of them here in Calif.

We do need investment in transmission lines so that all potential places can produce power.

 

[Bern80]

Going to half to be more specific, I looked but found no mention of 250 bil bbl.

Clearly you need more schooling.

The oil companies want to keep us dependent on their oil because that way we have to pay them for fuel. You do realize that the wind is free, don't you? As is sunlight. After installing a wind turbine the cost is very low, basically maintenance (which is minimal since there is only one moving part). Electric generators are as reliable as electric motors. With a conventional power plant you GET to buy oil every day!

What part of free don't you get?

What? A company wants to continue to make money? SHOCKER!! If they are so cost effective why does it need to be subsidized? The cost of getting that power to any quantity of people is ridiculous. And no it isn't just setting up wind turbines. They need a back of some type because they are incapable of providing power consistently or reliably. Transporting the actual power is no small feet either because as Sen. Kennedy demonstrated you have a bit of a 'not in my backyard' problem as well.

Where the numbers came from? It's called math. Go back and do some.

 

[wihosa]

What? A company wants to continue to make money? SHOCKER!! If they are so cost effective why does it need to be subsidized? The cost of getting that power to any quantity of people is ridiculous. And no it isn't just setting up wind turbines. They need a back of some type because they are incapable of providing power consistently or reliably. Transporting the actual power is no small feet either because as Sen. Kennedy demonstrated you have a bit of a 'not in my backyard' problem as well.

Where the numbers came from? It's called math. Go back and do some.

Your getting raped and you like it.

No, oil companies have us over a barrel and they don't want to lose their gravy train, luckily they have fools like you to stick up for them.

Your 250 bil bbl is 250 bil barrels of BS.

I gave you the exact figures from the CIA's web site and you give "some estimate" and say "do some math". Math is not the problem, your making stuff up is.

 

[chopcrazy]

Going to half to be more specific, I looked but found no mention of 250 bil bbl.

Clearly you need more schooling.

The oil companies want to keep us dependent on their oil because that way we have to pay them for fuel. You do realize that the wind is free, don't you? As is sunlight. After installing a wind turbine the cost is very low, basically maintenance (which is minimal since there is only one moving part). Electric generators are as reliable as electric motors. With a conventional power plant you GET to buy oil every day!

What part of free don't you get?

Oil is used primarily for transportation (gasoline, diesel and jet fuel). Solar and wind are alternative choices to electricity not to the combustion engine. Until there are improvements with engine efficiency or alternative sources battery technology and hybrid engines; oil will be needed in large quantities.

 

[Bern80]

Your getting raped and you like it.

No, oil companies have us over a barrel and they don't want to lose their gravy train, luckily they have fools like you to stick up for them.

Your 250 bil bbl is 250 bil barrels of BS.

I gave you the exact figures from the CIA's web site and you give "some estimate" and say "do some math". Math is not the problem, your making stuff up is.

There's nothing wrong with your proven reserve numbers, but's that all they are . They don't account for unproven reserves which we can also most likely get to nor do they account for the possbiilites in shale oil

At some point you will need to figure out that just saying 'you're wrong' isn't much of an argument. I'm sorry you can't add two numbers together, not my problem. You still fail to address the FACT that wind and solar simply are not reliable sources of electricity.

 

[Annie]

crickets

 

[Chris]

There's nothing wrong with your proven reserve numbers, but's that all they are . They don't account for unproven reserves which we can also most likely get to nor do they account for the possbiilites in shale oil

At some point you will need to figure out that just saying 'you're wrong' isn't much of an argument. I'm sorry you can't add two numbers together, not my problem. You still fail to address the FACT that wind and solar simply are not reliable sources of electricity.

More lies from the Bern. You are a tool of the corporate lobbyists.

The Danes get 20% of their energy from wind power. The Iraelis are building one solar energy plant that will suppy 5% of their energy needs. Every house in American should have solar shingles and a wind turbine.

 

[Chris]

Lafayette, Indiana Weather, News, Sports and Entertainment WLFI.com News Channel 18, Its News Where You Live: First residential wind turbine comes to Clinton County

 

[Bern80]

More lies from the Bern. You are a tool of the corporate lobbyists.

The Danes get 20% of their energy from wind power. The Iraelis are building on solar energy plant that will suppy 5% of their energy needs. Every house in American should have solar shingles and a wind turbine.

Please point to exactley where there is any thing that could even resemble a lie in that post.

 

[Chris]

"wind and solar simply are not reliable sources of electricity."

Do a little reading, please.

 

[chopcrazy]

More lies from the Bern. You are a tool of the corporate lobbyists.

The Danes get 20% of their energy from wind power. The Iraelis are building on solar energy plant that will suppy 5% of their energy needs. Every house in American should have solar shingles and a wind turbine.

You all make me laugh as you...you all are talking apples and oranges. Oil is for cars and transportation needs, primarily. Heating oil is a small component of a barrel of oil. Electricity is for powering homes and businesses.

Can someone explain to me how solar and wind will be sufficient to power a car, truck or jet plane?

Sources of electricity are nuclear, coal, natural gas, solar, wind, hydroectric and geothermal to name a few.

 

[Bern80]

"wind and solar simply are not reliable sources of electricity."

Do a little reading, please.

Guess I missed the part where we can reliably predict the whether.

 

[Bern80]

You all make me laugh as you...you all are talking apples and oranges. Oil is for cars and transportation needs, primarily. Heating oil is a small component of a barrel of oil. Electricity is for powering homes and businesses.

Can someone explain to me how solar and wind will be sufficient to power a car, truck or jet plane?

Sources of electricity are nuclear, coal, natural gas, solar, wind, hydroectric and geothermal to name a few.

I guess my assumption at this point is that we're both talking apples, (that is electricity).