I see your point, but i still think it is best to keep new drilling in our country at a minimum right now and leave the oil in the ground until we actually do have an energy crisis on our hands. Then when oil reaches a price of around $200 a barrel due to lowered supply, open up new pipelines with a new energy policy stating that this oil is domestic product only, in turn relieving some of the pressure off of our country while the rest of the world is squirming. Call it selfish, greedy or whatever you want to call it, but we'll be thankful when that day comes...and all of this goes without mentioning that drilling for new oil reserves will most likely bankrupt a couple oil companies since the only oil reserves they will be able to find are ones they've already tapped in to...
Dear Liberals of the USA ...
- Thread starter 1BiGG1
- Start date
I see your point, but i still think it is best to keep new drilling in our country at a minimum right now and leave the oil in the ground until we actually do have an energy crisis on our hands. Then when oil reaches a price of around $200 a barrel due to lowered supply, open up new pipelines with a new energy policy stating that this oil is domestic product only, in turn relieving some of the pressure off of our country while the rest of the world is squirming. Call it selfish, greedy or whatever you want to call it, but we'll be thankful when that day comes...and all of this goes without mentioning that drilling for new oil reserves will most likely bankrupt a couple oil companies since the only oil reserves they will be able to find are ones they've already tapped in to...
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2004
- Posts
- 15,642
- Media
- 62
- Likes
- 5,042
- Points
- 433
- Location
- London (Greater London, England)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
There's talk in Britain about more exploitation of our oil and gas reserves (in the North Sea). The problem is that this cannot be done quickly as it requires more drill rigs and pipes. The very high extraction costs mean that it is only viable while oil is at the present astronomic prices. No company is going to put forward the investment needed unless they feel sure that prices are going to be as high in 5-10 years. At the moment it seems they don't feel this, which is perhaps good news.
Presumably the position in the USA is comparable - until high prices are sustained the investment in more extraction is not viable.
Presumably the position in the USA is comparable - until high prices are sustained the investment in more extraction is not viable.
- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Posts
- 1,942
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 29
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Trillions? Clearly it's not yours either.
U.S. petroleum imports (crude & products) in April 2008: 13,178,000 barrels per day @ $134 per barrel today so you are the math wiz allegedly, how many days of imports = a trillion dollars? P.S. dont forget to add in the US Military and other in-house costs. :smile:
The contracts for additional drilling have not been awarded yet and when they are they could go to American companies and/or we can buy stock in others like British Petroleum unlike the inability of buying stock in Saudi Arabia or Venezuela.
BINGO!! Give that man a gold star!
Why we have centuries worth of uranium still buried in Tennessee, centuries worth of coal still to mine, and centuries worth of oil in the Colorado oil shale. It's the true strategic reserve. In global politics, the last man standing wins.
kalipygian
Expert Member
The same arguments were made for development at Prudhoe in the sixties. There was a domestic only clause in the Federal enabling legislation. The producers were successful in getting that removed in the 80's because they could make a higher profit selling it to Japan.
From the wildlife conservation perspective, it is more significant that ANWR coastal plain is the calving area for the Porcupine Caribou herd. They can tolerate some development in their feeding or migrating areas, but will not bear calves in the presence of people. They are the larges remaining group of migratory large mammals on the continent.
Polar bears are going to be in trouble primarily from loss of sea ice, regardless of development on land. They are not afraid of people, they think we are just as delish as seals.
Last edited:
Honestly people, kalipygian knows what the fuck he is talking about. If we were to just go into there and drill it which is up to the people of Alaska I believe, I lived there but wasn't old enough for the politics, it would not change much and whenever we ran through that what next?
- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Posts
- 1,942
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 29
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I don't think he knows nearly as much as these guys ...
Arctic Power - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - Home
... check the "facts" there!
dong20
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Posts
- 6,058
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 28
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The grey country
- Sexuality
- No Response
Well, the API figures (which you cite) are way out of line with almost all others I've read, and you 'conveniently' forgot to add that both the BPD figure and the import total as a fraction of consumption are down over 5% on April 2007. The price you quoted is ~ today's spot price, the average price paid over the period you quoted was $110. Another convenient omission.
But let's assume the API figures are correct, then that would be about 635, let's say two years - using the average price paid it's 773 days, or well over two years.
Thing is, the DOE figures for March show 9.6 million per day, which equates to 873 days (~3 years?). So, that's a likely minimum of 3-4 years, at current prices to even 'break even', and that assumes exploration, extraction and recovery is gratis or that said costs are otherwise 'offset' (tax?).
Add in the points raised by others and you should see that it's not that simple as changing as changing from one 'source' to another as you (I assume, in starting this misguided thread) well know. That was primarily what I was challenging, the raw cost of crude is but one element in the real cost equation.
Also, I didn't allege I was a maths whiz, and you said trillions not a trillion.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Posts
- 1,942
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 29
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Lets put this another way, in 2007 the US imported 37,750,000 dollars worth of oil every hour of every day!
Factoring in the cost to defend imported oil and the cost of jobs and industry sent abroad = nearly a trillion dollars!
BUT there’s more, MUCH more! We have not even mentioned the trillions of cubic feet of domestic natural gas that is also useable from the same area.
dong20
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Posts
- 6,058
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 28
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The grey country
- Sexuality
- No Response
No, let's not - that's commonly known as evading a refutation of your assertion, also it's 2008 now.
Citations to verify that figure, please.
Irrelevant to the original assertion you made.
Ok I'm an environmentalist at heart (keep your groans and moans to yourself, unless you're jerking off lol). My problem with drilling at ANWAR is that no one really knows just how much oil is up there. There could be 2 years worth of oil, 20 years of oil, or not much at all. Drilling for more oil is just a bandaid for our energy problems. If our government invested a small percentage of the federal gasoline tax, and use it to start researching and developing clean and cheap energy sources, then oil would not be in such high demand, prices for everything will decrease, the economy will improve, and the environment will improve. I know there is more involved to all of this, but its a start.
As for a quick fix (of sorts) take some of the fuel taxes, and use them to bring the price of hybrids, bio-diesel, and electric cars down to a level where the average joe could afford it. Once again, demand for oil will decrease, the price of oil will decrease, prices of everything else will decrease, the environment will be greatly helped, and the economy will begin to recover.
As for a quick fix (of sorts) take some of the fuel taxes, and use them to bring the price of hybrids, bio-diesel, and electric cars down to a level where the average joe could afford it. Once again, demand for oil will decrease, the price of oil will decrease, prices of everything else will decrease, the environment will be greatly helped, and the economy will begin to recover.
Last edited:
I think this could possibly work as soon as more of these babies are on the market... 300 Miles Per Gallon! Aptera Motors Unveils Ultra Efficient All-Electric and Plug-In Hybrid
- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Posts
- 1,942
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 29
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Yes, Im quite well-aware of what year it is but thank you for pointing out the irrelevant obvious anyway.
Prior year industry statistics are like common to use in conversation and its not like demand has decreased a whole lot anyway. Industry Statistics
Dont think so, my original post stated start supporting domestic fuel production starting with exploring/drilling ANWR immediately the key word there being fuel
- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Posts
- 1,942
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 29
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Good points and you are talking too an fan of alternate fuels but macroeconomics dictate a slow change away from fossil oil so since thats the case, I say we fire up the domestic drills as fast as possible!
kalipygian
Expert Member
The decision is with congress. It is federal land, not state, as Prudhoe is.
If it was up to the people of Alaska, it would have been developed 25 years ago.
I think it should be left in the ground, that is a minority opinion here. People who would personally benefit financially from it are for it. Big surprise.
It doesn't have the slightest chance of going anywhere in Congress. It isn't presently much discussed here. Building a natural gas pipeline is.
Dear Liberals,
Can you contact your leadership and tell them to start supporting domestic fuel production starting with exploring/drilling ANWR immediately? Im certain the 3 polar bears that live in that frozen tundra wasteland will not be inconvenienced anywhere near as much as you eco-freaks think they will!
Thank you,
1BiGG1
,
seriously dude... come on now, why you gotta bring the bears into this? they never did anything to you!
it wouldnt matter anyway.. with 85 million people joining this world every year.. with ever more developing industrialized countries the demand will surpass the production astronomicaly. It wouldnt matter if that happens in ten years of in 20. Our whole world-economy is build on one thing.. oil. From your chicken wings to the clothes you wear to your hospital when your sick and the meds you need. Everything is produced by and maintained with the use of oil.
Did nobody ever teach you its bad to bet everything on one horse? But.. until people at large open their eyes we will go on as if everything is okay. And i'm not even talking about the enviroment. I'm talking about keeping this planet running.
Did nobody ever teach you its bad to bet everything on one horse? But.. until people at large open their eyes we will go on as if everything is okay. And i'm not even talking about the enviroment. I'm talking about keeping this planet running.
dong20
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Posts
- 6,058
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 28
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The grey country
- Sexuality
- No Response
Yes, Im quite well-aware of what year it is but thank you for pointing out the irrelevant obvious anyway.
You changed the premise of your argument when I provided evidence of its weakness, was my point. The 2007 was a throwaway.
The link provided is (surprise surprise to industry stats the same ones you cited and I called you on in terms of veracity), in support of an industry argument, hardly an objective basis for your argument. I asked for citations that back up your assertion that 'factoring in' spending on Jobs and industry being send overseas and Military spending) brings spending to 1$ Trillion. Also, what you have not done, which I should have asked you was over what time scale. If you mean anually then are you suggesting that 'missing' figure amounts to close to $500 Billion p.a. or more than twice US annual spending on Iraq - Is that what you're saying?
But you cited OIL in your response, I merely responded in kind. Does the US spend hundreds of billions annually on Gas imports (the volume of which is rising, actually) ? If not, then let me ask again; where will these trillions be saved from being spent overseas ... how much of this will directly be fed into the domestic economy ... over what cost recovery timescale ...
I'm open to the arggument but you made the assertion, I merely asked you to back it up. Thus far you have evaded the question and cited Oil Industry statistics that don't address a large part of your underlying argument. Quite a weak performance so far, IMO.