3rdnlng Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) I've been giving myself a "primer" on energy and it would seem that if we could up production to the level for energy independence, we could get oil prices down, thus getting gasoline prices down to a reasonable level. One of the articles linked below says that in order to make processing shale oil profitable, oil must be at $50 a barrel or more. I think if we added 10 million barrels of oil to the world market that might do it. It also seems like it would be a win for jobs and government coffers. The cheaper fuel costs would give more disposable money to everyone, thus helping the economy out there too. I thought there might be a few people here on PPP that had some real knowledge of this subject and could enlighten us. http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/05/myth-of-idle-leases-for-oil-on-federal.html http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm Edited June 4, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 If we add "recoverable oil" to the estimated oil "reserves" in this country, we have more oil than all the "proven" reserves of the world combined.... Problem is... Our own gubment won't allow recovery to begin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 If we add "recoverable oil" to the estimated oil "reserves" in this country, we have more oil than all the "proven" reserves of the world combined.... Problem is... Our own gubment won't allow recovery to begin... Well our "proven" oil reserves are about 20 billion barrels, about the same as in 1946. That's the figure Obama uses when he says we only have 2% of the world's oil but use 25% of it. It just seems to make sense that if we become energy independent or a net exporter of oil then the job situation improves and the fed & state coffers are helped out. The world's need for oil is going to be satisfied one way or the other. Who would you want drilling and extracting it environmentally wise, the U.S. or China? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Well our "proven" oil reserves are about 20 billion barrels, about the same as in 1946. That's the figure Obama uses when he says we only have 2% of the world's oil but use 25% of it. It just seems to make sense that if we become energy independent or a net exporter of oil then the job situation improves and the fed & state coffers are helped out. The world's need for oil is going to be satisfied one way or the other. Who would you want drilling and extracting it environmentally wise, the U.S. or China? 3rd.... your preaching to the choir here.... look to SD for an example of how it could provide local, state, and even fed revenues, jobs, etc, to increase. But MY point is, in the Dakotas, it's on PRIVATE land that all the drilling is happening, not on land WE ALL own, but the gubment holds power over.... We COULD be energy independent, unfortunately, our gubment would then lose control over a vast portion of the population, and will never approve of losing power... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 3rd.... your preaching to the choir here.... look to SD for an example of how it could provide local, state, and even fed revenues, jobs, etc, to increase. But MY point is, in the Dakotas, it's on PRIVATE land that all the drilling is happening, not on land WE ALL own, but the gubment holds power over.... We COULD be energy independent, unfortunately, our gubment would then lose control over a vast portion of the population, and will never approve of losing power... All we can do is make a big stink about it. Explain the gov't control though, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 drilling and exploration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 drilling and exploration Well, I know that they are doing that. I guess i don't understand where you are coming from (in this instance) about the government controlling us by limiting drilling. Now if you are going to relate it to global warming or something along that line I might be able to see your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Interesting reads 3rd. I think that ANWR is one of the most beautiful, pristine, undisturbed land that we have in the world. Huge oil rigs drilling there and disrupting the ecosystem SUCKS. That said, it needs to happen - with best practices in place to ensure environmental compliance and wildlife conservation. I can actually see the perspective of the enviro-nuts though. The optics of Exxon contractors clubbing baby seals and seagulls wallowing in oil soot is heart wrenching. They feel that that is the inevitable slippery slope of allowing oil drilling in that region of Alaska. I'm very interested in the article concerning the drilling leases for oil fields. I'm not sure why obtaining a permit doesn't go hand-in-hand with securing the lease. Why whould those processes be separate and distinct? And taking alomst 5 years to secure a permit for land that the government has already ok'd the lease on is unconscionable. That's like leasing a car and not being able to drive it, or leasing a house and not being able to reside in it. I know that someone will opine that changes are being made to the land whereas in the house analogy there is no extension being built, etc. But if the calculated objective of leasing the land is to drill, than whatever process is necessary to effectuate that end should be considered eo ipso into the preliminary due diligence process of obtaining the lease. In the law we have a fun little concept called "frustration of purpose" that in many instances can get you outside of a contract repudiation situation. You would think that an avoidance of fop challenges would prompt the government to tighten up their processes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) Interesting reads 3rd. I think that ANWR is one of the most beautiful, pristine, undisturbed land that we have in the world. Huge oil rigs drilling there and disrupting the ecosystem SUCKS. That said, it needs to happen - with best practices in place to ensure environmental compliance and wildlife conservation. I can actually see the perspective of the enviro-nuts though. The optics of Exxon contractors clubbing baby seals and seagulls wallowing in oil soot is heart wrenching. They feel that that is the inevitable slippery slope of allowing oil drilling in that region of Alaska. I'm very interested in the article concerning the drilling leases for oil fields. I'm not sure why obtaining a permit doesn't go hand-in-hand with securing the lease. Why whould those processes be separate and distinct? And taking alomst 5 years to secure a permit for land that the government has already ok'd the lease on is unconscionable. That's like leasing a car and not being able to drive it, or leasing a house and not being able to reside in it. I know that someone will opine that changes are being made to the land whereas in the house analogy there is no extension being built, etc. But if the calculated objective of leasing the land is to drill, than whatever process is necessary to effectuate that end should be considered eo ipso into the preliminary due diligence process of obtaining the lease. In the law we have a fun little concept called "frustration of purpose" that in many instances can get you outside of a contract repudiation situation. You would think that an avoidance of fop challenges would prompt the government to tighten up their processes. Check these links out. The second one shows pictures of where they are planning on drilling. http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conservativeopinion/2008/05/29/drilling-in-anwr-the-facts-that-are-conveniently-ignored/ http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_Real_ANWR_Story_in_Pictures.pdf Check how close it is to Prudhoe Bay. Edited June 4, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Check these links out. The second one shows pictures of where they are planning on drilling. http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conservativeopinion/2008/05/29/drilling-in-anwr-the-facts-that-are-conveniently-ignored/ http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_Real_ANWR_Story_in_Pictures.pdf Check how close it is to Prudhoe Bay. Of course the people who accost me at Gallery Place Metro show me different literature. And obviously that is calculated. However, that is where the push back comes from body politic. I have never seen a media campaign for drilling that shows those images of relatively undisturbed ecosystems. The pro-drilling campaign is really lacking with respect to public relations. And they have obviously had their share of hiccups. Exxon Valdez (transport, not drilling) will always be the quintessential case against enterprising oil exploration in human-uninhabited ecosystems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts