PDA

View Full Version : THE ENERGY RUSH



nAz
05-23-2012, 09:07 PM
wow a disaster waiting to happen, but so what we need the oil right?

WASHINGTON — Shortly before Thanksgiving in 2010, the leaders of the commission President Obama had appointed to investigate the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico sat down in the Oval Office to brief him.
The Energy Rush





After listening to their findings about the BP accident and the safety of deepwater drilling, the president abruptly changed the subject.

“Where are you coming out on the offshore Arctic?” he asked.

William K. Reilly, a former chief of the Environmental Protection Agency and a commission co-chairman, was startled, as was Carol M. Browner, the president’s top adviser at the time on energy and climate change. Although a proposal by Shell to drill in the Arctic had been a source of dissension, it was not a major focus of the panel’s work.

“It’s not deep water, right?” the president said, noting that Shell’s proposal involved low-pressure wells in 150 feet of water, nothing like BP’s 5,000-foot high-pressure well that blew out in the gulf.

“What that told me,” Mr. Reilly later recounted, “was that the president had already gotten deeply into this issue and was prepared to go forward.”

The president’s preoccupation with the Arctic proposal, even as the nation was still reeling from the BP spill, was the first hint that Shell’s audacious plan to drill in waters previously considered untouchable had gone from improbable to inevitable.

Barring a successful last-minute legal challenge by environmental groups, Shell will begin drilling test wells off the coast of northern Alaska in July, opening a new frontier in domestic oil exploration and accelerating a global rush to tap the untold resources beneath the frozen ocean.

It is a moment of major promise and considerable danger.

Industry experts and national security officials view the Alaskan Arctic as the last great domestic oil prospect, one that over time could bring the country a giant step closer to cutting its dependence on foreign oil...

Full story (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/science/earth/shell-arctic-ocean-drilling-stands-to-open-new-oil-frontier.html)

<span style="color: #FF6666">You know i would get on board with this plan as long as we force or seriously regulate any company (personhood) drilling here to pay for any clean up or long term damage done to the environment while drilling... and i don't mean damages over a couple of years either, i'm talking about 20 to 30 years.
Maybe make them put up a very large amount of capitol in escrow in case?
I know other countries are going to drill in the arctic so maybe this country should try to work out something similar with them too. It may make it easier for world wide environmentalist(?) to swallow if they did that and maybe triple down on clean energy solution, i mean why let China and Germany have all the fun.
</span>

cushioncrawler
05-24-2012, 12:27 AM
I am in favor of all and every oil and coal and fission proposal.
Az long az it inkloods putting aside an amount that will cover any possible damage.
At prezent the amount put aside iz probly zero.
And for example with fission if the shit hits the fan the peeple of theusofa will pay, not the power company.

Lemmesee. Possible damage to arctic and cost of cleanup and cost of fixing and cost of future fixing and cost of future losses and cost of future enjoyment and collatoral damage around the world due to melting etc etc.
Say one thousand trillion dollars.
Then, an amount that serves az a penalty for bad selfish inkompetant selfish criminal selfish works and decisions. Say one thousand trillion dollars.
Yes, that must be close to the equation.
mac.

eg8r
05-24-2012, 01:39 AM
I am not against regulation on oil companies to preserve our lands. I was quite outspoken about the damage in the gulf. I honestly think we let BP off too easily.

Having said that, if you think the oil spill was bad you should investigate what happens to our land and natural resources in the mining of materials for batteries to run these supposedly eco-friendly Prius'. There is more environmental harm in the gathering of raw materials, production, distribution and consumption of a Toyota Prius than a Hummer.

eg8r

cushioncrawler
05-24-2012, 03:16 AM
Top Gear sez that diesels were getting better mileage than a prius years and years ago.
mac.

eg8r
05-24-2012, 04:21 AM
A buddy of mine has a VW Jetta that runs on diesel and the gas mileage is very good somewhere in the neighborhood of 45 to 50 mpg highway mileage.

Interesting enough, I am drive a piece of garbage Peugot on this trip and the gas mileage is fantasic. It is a diesel but one of the gas savers is that this piece of junk turns off every time I stop at a red light. I hope the cost to replace a starter is cheaper than the cost to keep the motor running at a stop light. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Sev
05-24-2012, 01:18 PM
So lets see. They are going to drill off shore. Yet Anwar is closed?
Also what is the reason that they are not using horizontal drilling on shore to get to the off shore oil? Are the deposits to far out?

Soflasnapper
05-24-2012, 03:22 PM
I've recently read a credible account stating the major auto manufacturers are forbidden to sell their best mileage engines over here. The differences are huge-- there are some 70 mpg Fords, much higher VW models, etc.

The reason suggested, and it is plausible, is that the feds realized that getting THAT much better mileage would severely tank the federal gasoline excise tax receipts.

There is a more presentable reason which is the one they use, that says its an extra emission issue. However, working out the arithmetic, the emissions PER MILE DRIVEN would still work out to be less, given how much less fuel would be consumed for a given number of miles.

This has popped up several times since I first saw it, and the guy was alerted to it just as you were, by traveling to Europe and clocking the mileage he was getting that astounded him, carrying a full load of overweight Americans and heavy luggage.

Soflasnapper
05-24-2012, 03:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So lets see. They are going to drill off shore. Yet Anwar is closed?
Also what is the reason that they are not using horizontal drilling on shore to get to the off shore oil? Are the deposits to far out? </div></div>

They already have the ability to drill on 95% of the surroundings of ANWAR, and are not doing it.

This is a bully boy effort to quash any idea of conservation by the big energy players, nothing that is required to ramp up Alaskan production big time, which could easily be done without touching ANWAR. There are millions of square miles of leasing rights laying fallow, unexplored and undrilled, and they say ANWAR is the key? They are lying. It is way CHEAPER to do it in ANWAR is all.

eg8r
05-25-2012, 02:04 AM
Yeah, we have been here two weeks now. We have driven to work every day, out for meals, out to dancing, etc. This car gets tons of use every single day and we are getting close to half a tank used.

An advertisement outside the Ford dealership is advertising a Ford with 88 mpg. We were floored, but then again it makes sense to see the government keeping this out of the US but then we have electric cars/hybrid which possibly could equal the efficiencies but they are sold at such a premium that it doesn't make any financial sense to buy them.

eg8r

Sev
05-25-2012, 06:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So lets see. They are going to drill off shore. Yet Anwar is closed?
Also what is the reason that they are not using horizontal drilling on shore to get to the off shore oil? Are the deposits to far out? </div></div>

They already have the ability to drill on 95% of the surroundings of ANWAR, and are not doing it.

This is a bully boy effort to quash any idea of conservation by the big energy players, nothing that is required to ramp up Alaskan production big time, which could easily be done without touching ANWAR. There are millions of square miles of leasing rights laying fallow, unexplored and undrilled, and they say ANWAR is the key? They are lying. It is way CHEAPER to do it in ANWAR is all. </div></div>

There is nothing special about Anwar. Its a barren wasteland.
Keeping expenses low is one of the keys to keeping the cost at market low as well.

Thank god private production in Dakota is doing so well. It keeps most of the government fingers out of it.

Soflasnapper
05-25-2012, 01:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So why is drilling in the Arctic so important? Moore is surprised with the oil industry’s interest there as well: “Why are they so interested in drilling in the Arctic refuge? It’s hard to understand. It’s not about the oil. The House Majority Leader, Tom Delay (R-Texas), gave a speech last year admitting that it’s all about the precedent. He essentially said that if we can drill in the Arctic Refuge we can drill anywhere. Opening the Arctic to oil exploration will open other lands for future use by the oil industry.” According to Moore, “It starts with the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and then it’ll be Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon or the coast of California. It’s not about the oil. The Coastal Plain is the last bit of Arctic coast left. The oil industry would want nothing more than to put a fence of oil rigs around Alaska. Its crazy to me, but it seems that that’s what they want. Like a bunch of drunken sailors; they are on a binge and the only thing they want is more oil and more land to suck it out of.”

Jain explains that “the amount of oil in the refuge is marginal at best. It is not going to make a difference. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge is symbolic of a larger effort. It’s about getting into one protected area and using the momentum to get into another.”

Only 5% of Alaska’s Wilderness Remains Off-Limits to Drilling</div></div>

It's a trojan horse issue, actually.

Sev
05-25-2012, 03:17 PM
We should be building private refineries on the private lands where oil is being recovered. Keeping it off the world market and sold directly to distributors locally.

Soflasnapper
05-25-2012, 05:52 PM
All refineries are private, to my knowledge.

That we haven't built any in a long time is due to a) market realities as those companies see it, and b) that the ones we have, have been expanded as to capacity sufficient for demand.

Here you call for expansion of adequate refinery capacity for no market reason, against the judgment of the private sector, for what reason?

Besides which, you'd have to force the companies to keep it here, as they get a higher price overseas. (Which is why we are net exporter now of refined fuels.)

Sev
05-27-2012, 06:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All refineries are private, to my knowledge.

That we haven't built any in a long time is due to a) market realities as those companies see it, and b) that the ones we have, have been expanded as to capacity sufficient for demand.

Here you call for expansion of adequate refinery capacity for no market reason, against the judgment of the private sector, for what reason?

Besides which, you'd have to force the companies to keep it here, as they get a higher price overseas. (Which is why we are net exporter now of refined fuels.) </div></div>

I am talking about mom and pop or cottage refineries if you will. Not ones owned by Exxon mobile and such. Refineries do not need to be massive complexes if your objective is to sell gasoline to a local market.
One of the problems with oil is that is used as a global commodity and is one of the most highly regulated businesses on the planet.
Individuals that own the mineral rights to the oil on their properties and are recovering it should have the ability to sell directly to the local markets at prices of their choice and not prices that are dictated by speculators and the stock market.
Dakota's product would most likely only be sold to itself and bordering states. Giving them an energy price edge outs the prevue of the government and world market.

Soflasnapper
05-27-2012, 02:14 PM
You are calling for the reinstitution of domestic regulation of prices, although you may not know it.

We used to have that. Carter put in a couple of year phase out of the regulation of domestic oil pricing different from the world level, and Reagan jumped the couple of years to end it immediately, a couple of years ahead of what Carter put in place.

As deregulation is the cry of the free marketeers, I find this paradoxical from you, as you normally advocate the federal government butt out and let the markets work. This is the markets working, sans federal government imposition of a two-price system for domestic and foreign oil pricing.

Sev
05-27-2012, 06:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are calling for the reinstitution of domestic regulation of prices, although you may not know it.

We used to have that. Carter put in a couple of year phase out of the regulation of domestic oil pricing different from the world level, and Reagan jumped the couple of years to end it immediately, a couple of years ahead of what Carter put in place.

As deregulation is the cry of the free marketeers, I find this paradoxical from you, as you normally advocate the federal government butt out and let the markets work. This is the markets working, sans federal government imposition of a two-price system for domestic and foreign oil pricing. </div></div>

I think your misinterpreting what I am saying. Its deregulation to allow "Mom & Pop" refineries to operate and sell their own fuel locally and across state lines.
Or just locally if it becomes a problem with the Commerce Clause.

Free market principles would be in effect. Remember the global oil companies only make 30% of their profit through US sales as of 2011. That number may have decreased due to the warm winter and high gas prices.

Soflasnapper
05-29-2012, 04:07 PM
Why, other than being under duress, would they take less than the going rate for their refined fuel output? Patriotism?

I suppose they MIGHT pass along a lower transportation cost, or of course, they could pad their bottom line with that discount. A profit-driven entrepeneur would undoubtedly do the latter, whenever he could.

Sev
05-29-2012, 05:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why, other than being under duress, would they take less than the going rate for their refined fuel output? Patriotism?

I suppose they MIGHT pass along a lower transportation cost, or of course, they could pad their bottom line with that discount. A profit-driven entrepeneur would undoubtedly do the latter, whenever he could. </div></div>

A local business can often make the same or better profit ratio as a larger business without the headaches of going global. Petroleum is a volume based business. Profit on a gallon of gas is very small when all expenses are factored in.
Lower expenses lead to lower prices and would force the bigger companies to lower their price further and possibly lose the profit margin. They could very well be force out of those markets.