PDA

View Full Version : =: US Oil Shortage :=



SPetty
10-02-2003, 12:04 PM
There are a lot of folks who can't understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in America.

Well, there's a very simple answer. Nobody bothered to check the oil. We just didn't know we were getting low. The reason for that is purely geographical.

All our oil is in Alaska, Texas, California, and Oklahoma.

All our dipsticks are in Washington, DC.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
10-02-2003, 12:16 PM
It's all Bush and Cheney's fault. Just ask Qtec

Wally~~thought spetty's joke was funny

eg8r
10-02-2003, 01:40 PM
Too many dipsticks. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
10-03-2003, 03:35 AM
It would be a crime against humanity to drill for oil in Alaska. There is no reason for it.

Q

eg8r
10-03-2003, 06:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
crime against humanity <hr /></blockquote> ROTFL. This is the biggest load of crap so far. What is the crime against "humanity"???? The fact that we would not be so dependent on our other sources of oil?

eg8r

Qtec
10-03-2003, 07:09 AM
How much oil do you think they are talking about?

I guess you dont know that it would represent less than 5% of what the US needs. Or to put it another way, if the US was only dependant on this Alaskan oil, it would last about 6 months!
This is just an excuse to move into the protected area and exploit its resources.
An area that is protected, is not protected for nothing. But i,m sure you think GW knows best. After all, we must bow down to his supierior intellect. HaHaHa

Q

"They paved paradise, put up a parking lott". J.Mitchel

Wait till your lovely Florida beaches are turned black from a leaking oil tanker. Its not a pretty sight, I can assure you.

Sid_Vicious
10-03-2003, 08:44 AM
Q...Bush has fullfilled every expectation I thought he would, promoted the Iraq war, readjusted the wealth away from the middle class back toward his class of cronies, and especially padded the wallets and interests of big oil. Unless he's ousted next fall, he and the Rebublican dominated legislative branches WILL get Big Oil money from that protected region, come hell or high water. Yea, that dependence percentage of what we'ed get from Alaska reserves are a penance, but not a penance for "the agenda." The Good 'Ol Boys need some extra profits, like 300-400% profits ain't enough for'em, YEA RIGHT!

I heard the other day on MPR that Russia still has reserves in the tundra that are equal to or more than Saudi. It makes far more sense to help Russia help themselves, and at the same time wheel and deal for their oil. But you know what...that wouldn't be the profit margin that our oil men want for themselves...sid

Wally_in_Cincy
10-03-2003, 09:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> It would be a crime against humanity to drill for oil in Alaska. There is no reason for it.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

You are misinformed. That place up there is a frozen wasteland. It's a dam tundra. With today's drilling technology they could probably develop a total of a hundred acres for drilling. The place is a million freakin' acres. Do you think the caribou could handle that stress?

eg8r
10-03-2003, 09:19 AM
Answer the question. Where is the crime against "humanity"????? It seems like you are throwing out catch phrases.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
10-03-2003, 09:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr>

.....I heard the other day on MPR that Russia still has reserves in the tundra that are equal to or more than Saudi. It makes far more sense to help Russia help themselves, and at the same time wheel and deal for their oil. But you know what...that wouldn't be the profit margin that our oil men want for themselves...sid <hr /></blockquote>

Sid, perhaps you are forgetting that "Big Oil" is largely owned by regular old American stockholders. Wouldn't it be better for them to see their stock do well rather than ship the money to Russia?

eg8r
10-03-2003, 09:27 AM
He does not care about American stockholders because they might have more money than he does. Therefore they must be evil and rich and he would rather us give money to Russia than allow Americans to keep their own money.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
10-03-2003, 09:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> He does not care about American stockholders because they might have more money than he does. Therefore they must be evil and rich and he would rather us give money to Russia than allow Americans to keep their own money.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Tax the rich!!! </font color>

<font color="red">How do you define "rich"? </font color>

<font color="blue">Anybody who makes more than me </font color>

LOL

Qtec
10-03-2003, 10:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Americans are likely to learn about another piece of Alaskan geography even more remote than ANWR. It's an icy stretch of ocean, comprising the northernmost extent of US waters, called the Beaufort Sea.

Geologists say huge pockets of oil and natural gas may exist beneath the bottom of the ocean floor and could be of interest to the president and the oil industry.

Depending on the outcome of what could be a fiery partisan exchange in the Senate, the Interior Department could open nearly 10 million acres of Arctic barrier islands and ocean to energy exploration by the middle of summer.

But the area, which extends from Barrow, Ala., in the west to the US-Canada border in the east, is valued by environmentalists. Here, endangered bowhead whales cruise the icy-blue depths, polar bears prowl in search of seals, and native Inupiats still practice maritime hunts.

The region also constitutes some of the world's most hostile conditions for drilling.

"There is enough oil and gas that if companies want to bid on it and explore, we will make it accessible ," says John Goll, the regional director in Alaska for the federal Minerals Management Service, which administers off-shore drilling for the Interior Department. "But that still doesn't mean development will happen because exploration is expensive and there are no guarantees of success."

Estimates of commercially recoverable oil in the Beaufort Sea range from four to 12 billion barrels, and Mr. Goll adds that there is believed to be between 13 and 63 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - a commodity that would become more attractive if a proposed natural-gas pipeline from northern Alaska is built.

Relatively few exploration wells, perhaps 30, have been drilled recently in the Beaufort, and only one major development exists parallel to the several hundred miles of coastline. But congressional action could set the stage for a much larger infrastructure of drilling platforms, pipelines, ship traffic, and roads onshore.

"The level of intrusion itself is worrisome," says Pamela Miller of Arctic Connections, an organization based in Anchorage specializing in assessing the impacts of energy development on coastal areas. "If there's major development and a spill in the ocean, we're going to have a disaster because it would be next to impossible to contain."
A few months ago, Ms. Miller notes, the National Academy of Sciences warned that seismic exploration and offshore drilling would displace some whales and, in turn, force traditional Inupiat hunters to travel further afield. Any roads built in the area would also intrude on bear habitats.

Opening the Beaufort Sea to expanded exploration, however, is just part of a broader administration plan , which includes temporarily suspending mandatory federal royalty payments for companies that go looking for new deposits of oil and gas.

While taken as a whole, the 2003 version of energy legislation offers less than the $38 billion in subsidies to the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries offered two years ago, observers say it lays out a more ambitious strategy to ease regulatory restrictions on drilling.

One of the most controversial proposals calls for new efforts to identify and map commercial development potential along coastal regions that are currently off limits to drilling such as California, Florida, Oregon, Washington, and the Eastern seaboard.

"Why would you spend all that money and time assessing what is there unless you were planning to go and get it?" asks Peter Rafle, spokesman for The Wilderness Society.

<hr /></blockquote>

Alaska is just the tip of the iceberg.

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
10-03-2003, 10:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
....Depending on the outcome of what could be a fiery partisan exchange in the Senate, the Interior Department could open nearly 10 million acres of Arctic barrier islands and ocean to energy exploration by the middle of summer......<hr /></blockquote>

Q, this is great news. Thanks for sharing /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec
10-03-2003, 10:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
ExxonMobil rumours abound as Russian oil firms merge

Mark Tran
Friday October 3, 2003

Yukos and Sibneft today completed a $45bn (26.9bn) merger to create Russia's biggest company amid reports that US oil giant ExxonMobil was in talks to acquire a stake in the new group.
Shares of Yukos and Sibneft rose despite a Yukos denial of an imminent deal with ExxonMobil. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Yukos chief executive, said there was no foreign investment deal involving the new group.

"There is no deal, but when there is a deal we will make you happy by telling you," Mr Khodorkovsky told reporters on the sidelines of a major economic forum in Moscow.

But Mr Khodorkovsky's denials failed to quell speculation of a link-up between the new Russian group and a foreign company. The presence of ExxonMobil's chief executive, Lee Raymond, in Moscow at the same economic forum, only fuelled rumours of the company's desire to move aggressively into the Russian oil market.

The Financial Times reported that ExxonMobil, the world's largest public company, was interested in acquiring a 40% stake in Yukos-Sibneft and possibly as much as 50% that would cost at least $25bn.

<hr /></blockquote>

Wally,evrywhere man goes in the world he makes a mess. Once you open the door , thats it.
Q

Wally_in_Cincy
10-03-2003, 10:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
Wally,evrywhere man goes in the world he makes a mess. Once you open the door , thats it.
Q <hr /></blockquote>

So we should exterminate the parasitic humans from the earth?

Wally_in_Cincy
10-03-2003, 10:56 AM
Oh Spetty by the way, sorry for taking your light-hearted post down the dark alley of politico-environmental tug-of-war. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

nAz
10-03-2003, 02:45 PM
The truth is out there... we do not need alaskan oil. we should be helping the Russian out.it will help us in the long run if they can tap that oil and trust me it wont be nationalize, any American can buy stock in it. beside don't you guys think Moblie oil wont be a mian partner in developing those fields with the russians.

BTW its not a crime against humanity its a crime against nature.

One thing why wont Da W administartion release some of that stratigic oil we have so the price of home heating oil can go down this winter?

Clark/Dean 2004

eg8r
10-04-2003, 07:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
BTW its not a crime against humanity its a crime against nature. <hr /></blockquote> Yeah, I was wondering if Q would see that. It seems he cannot tell the difference.

eg8r

Qtec
10-04-2003, 09:16 AM
So you agree that its a crime against nature?

The Amazon rain forest is rapidly being destroyed. Without a doubt, one of the wonders of the world.
To chop it down would be a crime against nature.

Maybe your children,s,children,s,children,s,children might see it different.
They might ask ,"How could that have happened? Who gave them the right to destroy something that really belongs to the human race as a whole.".
They might see it as a crime that directly affects them.


In the same way that GW says that the oil in the ME is the WORLD,s oil, some things should be preserved for future generations.





When they kill the last whale, is that not a crime against the human race.
To deny our future generations the opportunity to appreciate one of God,s most magnificent creations is, IMO , a crime against humanity.

Are you against drilling off the coast of Florida?

Q

Sid_Vicious
10-04-2003, 09:43 AM
"Are you against drilling off the coast of Florida?"

That's a darn good question. Yes it is absolutely deplorable the way this world's wonders are allowed to die off or be destroyed due to mankind's greed. I'm no Greenpeace nut but I will certainly be seriously sad when the last whale is killed.

Many here should remember that oil shortage we supposedly had back in the 70's, escalating fuel costs, lines at the pumps...it was rediculous. It became apparent after all was said and done that there was no shortage, yet the government surely knew that long before all the price gouging was done, I mean, "Isn't it part of their job to know?" You bet they knew there was no shortage, you bet there was special interest($$$), and you bet that our Pres from his oil background and upbringing is "using" the circumstances today to grab profit for his buds at the expense of the ecology. The rich get richer...sid

Wally_in_Cincy
10-04-2003, 10:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> "Are you against drilling off the coast of Florida?"

That's a darn good question. Yes it is absolutely deplorable the way this world's wonders are allowed to die off or be destroyed due to mankind's greed. I'm no Greenpeace nut but I will certainly be seriously sad when the last whale is killed.

Many here should remember that oil shortage we supposedly had back in the 70's, escalating fuel costs, lines at the pumps...it was rediculous. It became apparent after all was said and done that there was no shortage, yet the government surely knew that long before all the price gouging was done, I mean, "Isn't it part of their job to know?" You bet they knew there was no shortage, you bet there was special interest($$$), and you bet that our Pres from his oil background and upbringing is "using" the circumstances today to grab profit for his buds at the expense of the ecology. The rich get richer...sid
<hr /></blockquote>

There absolutely was a shortage. OPEC cut off our oil temporarily because of our policies regarding Israel during and after the Six Day War. They soon realized they really wanted and needed our money more than they originally thought.

Sid_Vicious
10-04-2003, 11:02 AM
I don't argue that less oil was available to the US from OPEC, but there were statements I remember said back then saying that we were draining our oil resources at the rate of consumption, and basically would simply run out of mother's oil. Sure we got better mileage cars later on, but we also multiplied the number of cars per family too. Everyone from age 16 on nearly has a car of their own. S-o-o-o I'm saying that the allowance of a panic over a global oil shortage, which IMO existed in conjunction with all big oil interests, Mobil, etc. continue to all make 300-400% profits in the worst of consumer's times...was all a ploy. Opec may have been the instrument, but not necessarily the main culprit. Have we run out? No. Are we? Nobody dares speak that policy since the shortage of past, they've made their profits, "let sleeping dogs lie." We have oil for generations to come...sid