Question on drilling for Oil

[hethathathears]

Oh happy day

Edited April 6, 2010 by hethathathears

[miztrniceguy]

should have been doing this 10 yrs ago.....or 20

[hethathathears]

I so agree.

[john doe]

I don't get it. If production is 10 years out, why are they refusing to let them start drilling now? The sooner the better, right? It's not like we have technology on a large scale that is readily available at the moment to take its place. It's almost as if those who oppose drilling want a long-term energy crisis to happen and they are willing to do anything it takes to make it happen. Then when global warming fails to appear, they can claim that their efforts at creating this crisis worked.

[Jbs2763]

I don't get it. If production is 10 years out, why are they refusing to let them start drilling now? The sooner the better, right? It's not like we have technology on a large scale that is readily available at the moment to take its place. It's almost as if those who oppose drilling want a long-term energy crisis to happen and they are willing to do anything it takes to make it happen. Then when global warming fails to appear, they can claim that their efforts at creating this crisis worked.

because ALL the dirtbags in DC refuse to upset the green mafia

[Palerider]

because ALL the dirtbags in DC refuse to upset the green mafia

some of those dirtbags have flipped flopped on this issue more than a waffle at a waffle house restruant....

[MarginOfError]

I agree, we should have been looking at the options for drilling about 20 years ago. At this point, however, it really isn't worth it. On the one hand, we don't have the infrastructure for a massive drilling program. So the oil companies would have to shell out the money to get it set up. To pay for it, they raise the price of gas. Then they have to transport the crude oil to the refineries. That means either a lot of ships and trucks or new pipelines. Both options are very expensive. Costs get passed to the consumer. So, producing domestic oil, unfrotunately, won't relieve the price at the pump much at all for at least 20 years.

So, if newer technologies and better energy sources are within 20 years of feasibility, why not invest the money in creating the infrastructure for distribution of that energy source?

[john doe]

I agree, we should have been looking at the options for drilling about 20 years ago. At this point, however, it really isn't worth it. On the one hand, we don't have the infrastructure for a massive drilling program. So the oil companies would have to shell out the money to get it set up. To pay for it, they raise the price of gas. Then they have to transport the crude oil to the refineries. That means either a lot of ships and trucks or new pipelines. Both options are very expensive. Costs get passed to the consumer. So, producing domestic oil, unfrotunately, won't relieve the price at the pump much at all for at least 20 years.

So, if newer technologies and better energy sources are within 20 years of feasibility, why not invest the money in creating the infrastructure for distribution of that energy source?

Which new energy source do you propose that we force the oil companies to invest in? What makes you think they can't build an economically feasible oil infrastructure?

[hethathathears]

lkjh nnjhiu hlkjhugtg

Edited April 6, 2010 by hethathathears

[Over43]

In SE Idaho a wind farm company offered a lady the chance to have them lease her land. They will pay her by the kilowatt. She stands to make a whole lot more money than she ever has running cattle and raising alfalfa. Her neighbor happens to be a multimillionaire who has made his money selling snake oil. He has filed a motion to block the project because it will ruin his view.

None of us may like the energy issues we are facing, but something needs to be done (yes even windmills) to help alleviate the problem and stop sending our cash to nations that breed terrorists.

If we need to drill on the continental shelf, then let's get it on.

By the way, anyone seen the Smart Car? Ugly little thing.

O43

[john doe]

Seems to me that they wanted to put in a wind farm off the coast of Massachuestts, but some guy named Ted Kennedy said that it would ruin his view of the ocean so they dropped the idea. Some people want 'clean' energy but then they turn into NIMBY's about it when it comes to any real action. And I don't hear anyone pushing for nuclear energy, one of the safest and most cost-effective ways to produce energy. It's so clean the French haven't figured out how to kill themselves with it, but here in the USA it's a dead subject thanks to a few 'protectors' of the people.

[MarginOfError]

What makes you think they can't build an economically feasible oil infrastructure?

I don't know that economically feasible is as much a question as economically rewarding. After investing all the money into developing the infrastructure, I don't think oil prices would drop as much as people like to think they would. I keep on hearing that the oil companies could cut into their record profits to make the investment, but let's be realistic--they'll pass the costs right on down to the consumers.

Which new energy source do you propose that we force the oil companies to invest in?

I'm actually a big proponent of nuclear energy. It's succeeded in Europe and Canada because they built their nuclear energy system en masse. Nearly ever plant in those countries is identical, so if something breaks and a replacement part is needed, they can get it from another factory if they can't get it from the manufacturer right away.

The US nuclear system was built with nearly every plant being unique in its design. Do you have any idea how much it costs to get a custom fit replacement part for a nuclear reactor? That's why nuclear energy failed in the States. If the US built an average of 2 nuclear power plants for each state, we'd have enough energy to heat our homes, run all the electricity we wanted to burn, and perhaps even power a large proportion of the vehicles on the road, all while reducing the emissions into the environment that everyone worries about.

Someone said something about drilling for domestic oil would provide a lot of jobs for Americans. That's true, but a lot of those jobs will be unskilled manual labor jobs. Sure, it's better than nothing, but nuclear power would require a huge workforce of nuclear technicians that would have to be trained, ie white color jobs that can't be outsourced. Go nuclear.

[miztrniceguy]

drill,build nuclear,use wind, and the sun...do it all!

[MarginOfError]

We could also breed hamsters to run on wheels and turn turbines for power!

Just think...giant hamster farms!

[MorningStar]

In SE Idaho a wind farm company offered a lady the chance to have them lease her land. They will pay her by the kilowatt. She stands to make a whole lot more money than she ever has running cattle and raising alfalfa. Her neighbor happens to be a multimillionaire who has made his money selling snake oil. He has filed a motion to block the project because it will ruin his view.

None of us may like the energy issues we are facing, but something needs to be done (yes even windmills) to help alleviate the problem and stop sending our cash to nations that breed terrorists.

If we need to drill on the continental shelf, then let's get it on.

By the way, anyone seen the Smart Car? Ugly little thing.

O43

It's ugly and I would hate to get rear-ended in it.

[NeuroTypical]

On capitol hill over the weekend, the dems left for their vacation without passing any drilling legislation. The republicans are milking it for everything it's worth:

Politico.com - House Dems turn out the lights but GOP keeps talking

Although this Democrat majority just adjourned for the Democrat 5-week vacation, House Republicans are continuing to fight on the House floor. Although the lights, mics and C-SPAN cameras have been turned off, House Republicans are on the floor speaking to the taxpayers in the gallery who, not surprisingly, agree with Republican energy proposals.

[john doe]

I don't know that economically feasible is as much a question as economically rewarding. After investing all the money into developing the infrastructure, I don't think oil prices would drop as much as people like to think they would. I keep on hearing that the oil companies could cut into their record profits to make the investment, but let's be realistic--they'll pass the costs right on down to the consumers.

I think you're underestimating the efficiency of oil companies by a good margin. Also, you keep harping on the 'record' profits of oil companies. But you forgot to mention that the US government makes twice as much off oil as the oil companies do.

I'm actually a big proponent of nuclear energy. It's succeeded in Europe and Canada because they built their nuclear energy system en masse. Nearly ever plant in those countries is identical, so if something breaks and a replacement part is needed, they can get it from another factory if they can't get it from the manufacturer right away.

The US nuclear system was built with nearly every plant being unique in its design. Do you have any idea how much it costs to get a custom fit replacement part for a nuclear reactor? That's why nuclear energy failed in the States. If the US built an average of 2 nuclear power plants for each state, we'd have enough energy to heat our homes, run all the electricity we wanted to burn, and perhaps even power a large proportion of the vehicles on the road, all while reducing the emissions into the environment that everyone worries about.

Someone said something about drilling for domestic oil would provide a lot of jobs for Americans. That's true, but a lot of those jobs will be unskilled manual labor jobs. Sure, it's better than nothing, but nuclear power would require a huge workforce of nuclear technicians that would have to be trained, ie white color jobs that can't be outsourced. Go nuclear.

I agree, we should build nuclear power as much and fast as possible. But I honestly don't see a nuclear-powered automobile coming down the road for quite a while, if ever. Oil is very plentiful, we just need to take odwn the roadblacks to get to it. We as a nation need to become self-sufficient in oil and the sooner the better.

[MarginOfError]

But I honestly don't see a nuclear-powered automobile coming down the road for quite a while, if ever.

I didn't have in mind mini reactors in the cars. I had in mind using the nuclear power to recharge the batteries. A neat way for gas stations to survive, actually, would be to have large quantities of batteries, and instead of going to get your tank topped off, you go in and trade the battery of your electric car. Swap out the battery and go on your way. The gas station then recharges the battery that was there and puts it in the car of a future customer. I haven't put much thought into this, so I know they idea suffers from myriad flaws, but hey, why not kick it around?

[DigitalShadow]

I agree, we should build nuclear power as much and fast as possible. But I honestly don't see a nuclear-powered automobile coming down the road for quite a while, if ever. Oil is very plentiful, we just need to take odwn the roadblacks to get to it. We as a nation need to become self-sufficient in oil and the sooner the better.

There are already cars that could run on nuclear power, they just happen to store it in lithium ion batteries first, like the Tesla Roadster . Once you make a car that runs on electricity and has its own storage mechanism, you can produce the electricity with wind, solar, nuclear, oil, coal, genetically engineered hamsters, whatever is most efficient.

Battery technology is what is really holding us back, but I can see that changing relatively quickly, like in the next 5-10 years and you'll start seeing more and more all electric cars that don't require some combustable fuel to be used directly.

I am also a strong proponent of nuclear energy, by the way.

[john doe]

I'm somewhat familiar with electric cars. Yes, the technology is a huge hurdle that may or may not be crossed in the next few years. It's really hard to say. But to throw all our eggs into one basket(electricity, batteries, or even hydrogen) while denying yourself access to a proven basket(oil) is foolish, and poor energy policy. Oil has been proven to work, it is here, it is constantly improving. God did not give us this vast source of energy just to have us lock it up and throw away the key.

[DigitalShadow]

I'm somewhat familiar with electric cars. Yes, the technology is a huge hurdle that may or may not be crossed in the next few years. It's really hard to say. But to throw all our eggs into one basket(electricity, batteries, or even hydrogen) while denying yourself access to a proven basket(oil) is foolish, and poor energy policy. Oil has been proven to work, it is here, it is constantly improving. God did not give us this vast source of energy just to have us lock it up and throw away the key.

Leaving all our eggs in one basked (oil) that we know is not going to last forever is equally poor policy. I'm not advising we all immediately jump ship on the internal combustion engine, only that we ween ourselves off it as new, more efficient and renewable technologies emerge. God did not also give us more renewable energy sources to last for generations for us to short sightedly ignore them.

[john doe]

The figure I heard on the radio this morning (I can't verify it, so don't ask) was that there is enough oil under the US to last us for 250 years at our current use rate. 250 years, if that number is accurate, is plenty of time to come up with a better resource. I have heard shorter times which may be more believable, closer to 100 years, but still, that is plenty of time to figure things out. There is no reason to limit our use now for fear that we won't have any next month.

[DigitalShadow]

The figure I heard on the radio this morning (I can't verify it, so don't ask) was that there is enough oil under the US to last us for 250 years at our current use rate. 250 years, if that number is accurate, is plenty of time to come up with a better resource. I have heard shorter times which may be more believable, closer to 100 years, but still, that is plenty of time to figure things out. There is no reason to limit our use now for fear that we won't have any next month.

I'm not sure about that statistic either, and even assuming it is accurate, as the natural supply goes down it will be harder to find and extract it, combined with increasing demand as emerging economies like China start consuming even more, I think it is really hard to estimate how long oil will continue to be economically viable (a somewhat different question than how long it might "last").

In any case, I'm not suggesting anything be forced and I'm not calling for fearmongering over the issue. I'm only saying that other technologies may quickly become far more economically viable and overtake the market naturally. I personally think that money would be far better spent investing in battery technology research and mass producing nuclear plants rather than expanding oil drilling and infrastructure, but I doubt that will happen as the status quo has far too much momentum and influence. Whether that's a good thing or not, no one can say for sure :)