Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less [Archive]

View Full Version : Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less

W8EJO

05-31-2008, 02:06 PM

Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less

Sign the petition!

http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659

KV1M

05-31-2008, 02:14 PM

W1JSB

05-31-2008, 02:28 PM

W8EJO

05-31-2008, 02:34 PM

Won't make a dimes difference in the pump prices, it's not a lack of available crude supply issue.:rolleyes:
Would make the oil exploration companies like Halliburton and KBR really really happy though.:p

Oh, is that why Bush just went to the Saudis & begged them to increase production? Or is that why everytime there is a supply disruption (or even a threat thereof) the price of crude goes up.

BTW this is true of any commodity:
[Cold, wet weather imperils U.S. corn crop
By David Mercer • The Associated Press • May 31, 2008
"Late planting and USDA projections that farmers will plant less corn this year - despite heavy demand for corn to make ethanol, animal feed and other products - have propped up corn prices, keeping them near record highs."
http://lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080531/BUSINESS01/805310325/-1/newsfront]

Your knowledge of economics is on the order of BB rattling around in the hull of an empty oil tanker.

KV1M

05-31-2008, 02:45 PM

Quick lesson (again).

The price you see as rising is the spot price, this is NOT the price that the oil going into your cars cost. It is the cost of out of invoice orders that are used to make up for a miscalculated order or to add to strategic reserves. It is the SPOT price, the price of the oil you put in your tank is around $35 per barrel as negotiated and contracted in advance.

The price of oil at the pump goes up because you will pay it. No other reason. Shortfalls are manufactured and excuses made to get you to accept the latest price hike, but that price has no basis in the actual cost of the oil you are buying.

It is what you will pay, nothing more.

GW begging for oil is GW doing PR. He knows what they are going to say before he even gets there, Bandar is family remember? He as usual is paying you for suckers and as usual you are believing him.

Raiding the strategic untapped reserves will do nothing but make a mess, give the exploration companies huge amounts of tax dollar subsidies and make Cheney even more wealthy.
Your pump price will continue rise anyway until the refiners have decided that you can't afford to pay any more, then and only then will it stabilize.

W8EJO

05-31-2008, 03:01 PM

Why not pursue alternative methods for free energy, and use it in ways that would stimulate the economy and enliven peace in the world? Hydrogen from electrolysis, and magnetic over unity devices come to mind...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU

Get right on that. When you can power my F250 & give me 400 miles for $60 worth of fuel report back.

You'll be a zillionaire.

w2amr

05-31-2008, 03:12 PM

KP3FT

05-31-2008, 03:17 PM

W8EJO

05-31-2008, 03:21 PM

W1JSB

05-31-2008, 03:21 PM

Get right on that. When you can power my F250 & give me 400 miles for $60 worth of fuel report back.

You'll be a zillionaire.

The technology is out there, unfortunately it is highly suppressed before it can be applied on a large scale. Research Stan Meyer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6yRn4IAsrU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stApCmxYEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h75_TGiwg78

KP3FT

05-31-2008, 03:37 PM

The technology is out there, unfortunately it is highly suppressed before it can be applied on a large scale. Research Stan Meyer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6yRn4IAsrU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stApCmxYEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h75_TGiwg78

It is out there. It's too bad we've kept plugging billions and billions of dollars into NASA programs to investigate other planet's physical properties, when we could have used the money for more direct and practical applications like investigating our own planet's physical properties for alternative energy. We've had over three decades to really do something, since the last oil "crisis", but really have done very little. Why?

KC4RAN

05-31-2008, 03:42 PM

The technology is out there, unfortunately it is highly suppressed before it can be applied on a large scale. Research Stan Meyer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6yRn4IAsrU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stApCmxYEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h75_TGiwg78

To verify this technology, you would have to watch it run, run out of fuel, be refueled with only water, then run out again, then be inspected. My first guess says that one of Newton's laws of thermodynamics is interfering here.

Is this car running off of hydrogen? Probably. Is the electrolysis generator creating hydrogen by splitting water with electricity? Appears to be. Will it run indefinitely as long as you add water?

Nope.

Splitting water into H2 and O2 takes an input of energy. Combining H2 and O2 releases energy. The problem is that you cannot get more energy out of the system than it took to put into it to split the H2O in the first place.

N2RJ

05-31-2008, 04:21 PM

Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less

Sign the petition!

http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659

Yes, Let's drill ANWR to lower oil prices! (http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/energy/anwr-drilling-cut--cents-oil-prices-doe-says/)

Every time this crap floats about, do you guys realize how dumb you all look?

The only way to lower oil prices and maintain a capitalist oil industry. is to lower consumption, and even then that's not guaranteed to work.

Just suck it up and pay. Really.

n4cd

05-31-2008, 06:15 PM

The world is demanding more and more oil. There isn't any more production capability. That is the key. 45% of the oil reserves remain. You just can't get more oil out of the ground per year. YOu are now 'post peak'.

You can drill all you want in ANWR. That might, just might, be ten billion barrels of oil. Great, at $100/bbl, that is a trillion dollars plus in oil. Somoene will make money.

IN reality, the best rate of flow you can get is 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, because that is the limit of the AK pipeline, if it still exists in 10 years when you get around to ANWR. That is less than 10% of the US appetite for oil (21 million bbl/day).

In the big scheme of things, by the time ANWR comes on line in 8-10 years if you drill NOW, the world will need another 15 million bbl/day. In addition, the remaining production of the world will be down another 5-10 million barrles, so you'll be 20-35 million short out of a demand for 100 million bbl of oil. THose tens of millions of new cars in China will all need gas.

NL7W

05-31-2008, 07:12 PM

Yes, Let's drill ANWR to lower oil prices! (http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/energy/anwr-drilling-cut--cents-oil-prices-doe-says/)

Every time this crap floats about, do you guys realize how dumb you all look?

The only way to lower oil prices and maintain a capitalist oil industry. is to lower consumption, and even then that's not guaranteed to work.

Just suck it up and pay. Really.

You've lost touch of reality...

It isn't just ANWR. It's the lifting of moratoriums on NIMBY "off-limits" places (which are numerous), the huge fields off our coasts and on dry land. It's oil shale in the Rockies. It's the new discoveries in ND and MT. It's uncapping older, lower producing, wells across the country now that the prices are high enough to support them. It's applying the latest directional drilling techniques in older fields. It's the building of greater refining capacity, doing it in-country, versus importing more expensive refined products. Reliance on foreign oil must be abated -- our Nation's wealth, what's left of it, is flowing overseas.

When it comes to needed fossil fuels, we must tell the world that the United States is willing to drill and refine amounts that will lessen our dependence on foreign oil, while our Nation's population and economy grows -- all the while, increasing demand by 45% just a few decades down the road. If we do this, our national economy will improve, providing direct, high-paying, job opportunities in-country to hundreds of thousands -- with effects reverberating throughout the national economy.

Continued reliance on foreign oil from unstable countries and regions could spell disaster for America. Actually, it probably will. The sooner we ween ourselves of these dependencies, the stronger we'll become. Talk to one of our Western neighbors, Brazil, about this. They do not rely on foreign oil at all. It can be done.

Oh... until viable transportation technology(s) are developed, and the "new" distribution infrastructure for these technology(s) is in-place, reliance on fossil fuels is REALITY. Today, only delusional people believe we can reduce or convert to some grand fossil fuel replacement idea(s). They haven't been developed yet.

73.

N2RJ

05-31-2008, 07:28 PM

You've lost touch of reality...

Not me. The department of energy is the one doing the study, not me.

It isn't just ANWR. It's the lifting of moratoriums on NIMBY "off-limits" places (which are numerous), the huge fields off our coasts and on dry land. It's oil shale in the Rockies. It's the new discoveries in ND and MT. It's uncapping older, lower producing, wells across the country now that the prices are high enough to support them. It's applying the latest directional drilling techniques in older fields. It's the building of greater refining capacity, doing it in-country, versus importing more expensive refined products. Reliance on foreign oil must be abated -- our Nation's wealth -- what's left of it is flowing overseas.
Still, all of this will not take care of the cause of hight prices - which is demand, and wall street speculators.

You and many others need to park the silverado at home, and maybe then prices will go down.

NL7W

05-31-2008, 07:38 PM

Not me. The department of energy is the one doing the study, not me.

Still, all of this will not take care of the cause of hight prices - which is demand, and wall street speculators.

You and many others need to park the silverado at home, and maybe then prices will go down.

Normally, it is parked, dude. I work out of my home. Can you say, home office? My commute consists of walking from my home's upstairs to downstairs.

Speculators are driving up prices due to our inability (unwillingness) to move away unstable foreign dependencies. They understand America is caught between a rock and a hard place, and are taking advantage of our situation. Until we show the market speculators that our Nation is willing to take locally controllable actions to curb dependencies of unstable supplies, we're in for a long, high priced ride.

w2amr

05-31-2008, 07:42 PM

NL7W

05-31-2008, 07:45 PM

Yeah Man, Give the oil companies everything they want. Let them drill wherever they want. Get rid of all those pesky environmental regulations. I'm sure the gas price will be down to fifty cents per gallon in no time.
What a bunch of loonies. :D

No, bud. Keep the regulations. Just let drilling and production take place. It's done today -- just extremely limited in scope. The suicidal NIMBY's have effectively stopped most drilling from taking place.

We, America, are the beacon of light for responsible extraction of oil & gas in the world. That'll never change. :)

Try again.

N4VGB

05-31-2008, 07:59 PM

Yeah Man, Give the oil companies everything they want. Let them drill wherever they want. Get rid of all those pesky environmental regulations. I'm sure the gas price will be down to fifty cents per gallon in no time.
What a bunch of loonies. :D

As usual, you don't get it at all. Nobody said "Get rid of all those pesky environmental regulations". You seem to be unaware that the oil companies can't drill, period! They can meet every regulation but still they aren't allowed to drill!

It won't get me any cheaper price for gas at the pump, I know that, but the joy of breaking the death grip that OPEC holds on America would be well worth it. :)

n2ize

05-31-2008, 09:44 PM

Yeah Man, Give the oil companies everything they want. Let them drill wherever they want. Get rid of all those pesky environmental regulations. I'm sure the gas price will be down to fifty cents per gallon in no time.
What a bunch of loonies. :D

If the oil companies wanted to drill Alaska or anywhere for that matter they would do so, environmental regulations or not. The4 oil companies have extremely large amount of money and money talks louder than words, laws, or anything else. When the oil companies are ready to drill and pump US oil they will do so and not a moment sooner. And once they pump that oil they will sell it, wherever the heck they feel like selling it.

Anyone who thinks the price is high because oil companies cannoit drill in the USA or that prices will go down if they do drill in the USA is nuts.

NL7W

05-31-2008, 10:00 PM

As usual, you don't get it at all. Nobody said "Get rid of all those pesky environmental regulations". You seem to be unaware that the oil companies can't drill, period! They can meet every regulation but still they aren't allowed to drill!

It won't get me any cheaper price for gas at the pump, I know that, but the joy of breaking the death grip that OPEC holds on America would be well worth it. :)

He's clueless in New Jersey... like so many others.

w2amr

05-31-2008, 10:10 PM

He's clueless in New Jersey... like so many others.
Yeah, don't I wish I was as sharp as you and your cousin Jethro. :D

NL7W

05-31-2008, 11:06 PM

Yeah, don't I wish I was as sharp as you and your cousin Jethro. :D

Knifelike -- yes you are... Keen, clear, and unmistakable -- no, you're not...

Jersey's toxicity -- to no fault of your own -- as well as your own hippie inhaling -- believed to be your own destructive right -- have taken their toll. ;):D:D:cool:

W5JO

05-31-2008, 11:22 PM

If the oil companies wanted to drill Alaska or anywhere for that matter they would do so, environmental regulations or not. The4 oil companies have extremely large amount of money and money talks louder than words, laws, or anything else. When the oil companies are ready to drill and pump US oil they will do so and not a moment sooner. And once they pump that oil they will sell it, wherever the heck they feel like selling it.

Anyone who thinks the price is high because oil companies cannoit drill in the USA or that prices will go down if they do drill in the USA is nuts.

Wonder what this guy is huffing? Did you loose your membership to the Huffington Post?

n2ize

05-31-2008, 11:23 PM

Wonder what this guy is huffing? Did you loose your membership to the Huffington Post?

I wouldn't worry about it too much.

w2amr

05-31-2008, 11:36 PM

I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Why do cons think that anyone who makes sense must be smoking something? :confused:

NL7W

05-31-2008, 11:41 PM

Why do cons think that anyone who makes sense must be smoking something? :confused:

Yes, you are confused -- and dazed for that matter.

n2ize

05-31-2008, 11:45 PM

Why do cons think that anyone who makes sense must be smoking something? :confused:

Because they're on the needle ?? I guess they'll say anything to irk a response.

N2RJ

05-31-2008, 11:46 PM

He's clueless in New Jersey... like so many others.

Clueless like YOU!

You are too stupid to realize that the oil companies can drill if they want. They are just using "regulations" as a scapegoat.

Do you really think they want to drill and lower prices? Think about it for a second. If you're making a lot of money, why spend MORE money to make less?

When it comes to clueless Stevie, you're the king and Dilmus is your second in command!

N2RJ

05-31-2008, 11:48 PM

Yes, you are confused -- and dazed for that matter.

And you're living in denial, Stevie.

Again, why would the oil companies spend MORE money to make less?

Do you think it's a charity they're running?

Jeez, what a doofus!

NL7W

06-01-2008, 12:02 AM

Clueless like YOU!

You are too stupid to realize that the oil companies can drill if they want. They are just using "regulations" as a scapegoat.

Do you really think they want to drill and lower prices? Think about it for a second. If you're making a lot of money, why spend MORE money to make less?

When it comes to clueless Stevie, you're the king and Dilmus is your second in command!

Drill if they want? Oh, so the lib-enviro-nazis and their organizations having well-funded lesser-48 Californian lawyers here in Anchorage don't exist? So, they don't window-shop for liberal judges to stop oil, gas, and mining activities throughout Alaska and the rest of the lesser-48 states? Heck, an article of a similar lib-environmental-nazi injunction(s), stoppage(s), or concocted bureaucratic BS to slow down or stop a refinery build-out in S. Chicago or Gary, IN. didn't just happen? K9STH posted it just awhile ago? Shall I post a recently similar sought after one-year injunction garnered by a five window-shopping liberal conservation groups concerning drilling in the Beaufort Sea?

How many of these lib-environmentalist stoppages shall I quote for you?

Besides being clueless, you, Sir, are ignorant, and bordering on just plain dumb. Just where did you go to school? :mad:

N2RJ

06-01-2008, 12:56 AM

Drill if they want? Oh, so the lib-enviro-nazis and their organizations having well-funded lesser-48 Californian lawyers here in Anchorage don't exist? So, they don't window-shop for liberal judges to stop oil, gas, and mining activities throughout Alaska and the rest of the lesser-48 states? Heck, an article of a similar lib-environmental-nazi injunction(s), stoppage(s), or concocted bureaucratic BS to slow down or stop a refinery build-out in S. Chicago or Gary, IN. didn't just happen? K9STH posted it just awhile ago? Shall I post a recently similar sought after one-year injunction garnered by a five window-shopping liberal conservation groups concerning drilling in the Beaufort Sea?

How many of these lib-environmentalist stoppages shall I quote for you?

Besides being clueless, you, Sir, are ignorant, and bordering on just plain dumb. Just where did you go to school? :mad:

You go ahead, keep blaming the "liberals" while the oil companies blame everyone else and play you like a puppet on a string while they laugh all the way to the bank.

They will blame everyone but themselves while they laugh happily to the bank, because they know that the gullible populace (aka YOU) who already hate "liberals" will use them as an excuse.

NL7W

06-01-2008, 02:11 AM

You go ahead, keep blaming the "liberals" while the oil companies blame everyone else and play you like a puppet on a string while they laugh all the way to the bank.

They will blame everyone but themselves while they laugh happily to the bank, because they know that the gullible populace (aka YOU) who already hate "liberals" will use them as an excuse.

Oh, so the Libs and the environmental-nazi's aren't one in the same? Please use all the logic in the world to dispute my spoken ties and associations. Please do! Good Luck! ;)

Your logic makes me puke... that's the best you've got? You've got nothing... :D:D:D

Yep, laughing to the bank with their 8 cents on the Dollar profit. Thank God there's some amount of volume to their business, otherwise why be in-business. God only knows the effort, capital, and risk involved in fossil fuels' exploration, extraction, and production. I know... I worked in Alaska's oil fields and along it's 600+ mile pipeline for years -- making six figures each year. It's tough work consisting and requiring long hours, capability, know-how, and guts n' gumption -- something you probably wouldn't know about.

Come back with disputing FACTS. Till then...

Ta Ta.

N4VGB

06-01-2008, 02:15 AM

N2RJ

06-01-2008, 02:15 AM

Oh, so the Libs and the environmental-nazi's aren't one in the same? Please use all the logic in the world to dispute my spoken ties and associations. Please do! Good Luck! ;)

That's not the point, Stevie.

Your logic makes me puke... that's the best you've got? You've got nothing...

Well, with that small brain of yours, I'm surprised you even know what logic is. :p :p :p

Yep, laughing to the bank with their 8 cents on the Dollar profit. Thank God there's some amount of volume to their business, otherwise why be in-business. God only knows the effort, capital, and risk involved in explore, extract, and produce fossil fuels. I know... I worked in Alaska's oil fields for years -- making six figures. It's tough work consisting and requiring long hours, capability, know-how, and guts n' gumption -- something you probably wouldn't know about.

Yeah, you go ahead thinking that, Stevie. I'll be fattening my retirement account with energy futures while poor saps like you keep pumping away. :p :p :p

http://forums.qrz.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17605&d=1212249411

N2RJ

06-01-2008, 02:17 AM

BS, you're not a liberal and few like you on here are liberals either, you're far left wingers that stole the word as your own.

I hope the price of OPEC oil goes through the ceiling and the supply is lowered. I'll be laughing my butt off at the massive misery when gasoline is $10 a gallon. The American public will then explode and see you as what you are, that's the end of you and all like you in politics for many years.

:p:p:p:p:p:p

No problem at all with me. I have a lot of my investments in energy futures.

I started doing that when I noticed a lot more SUVs on the roads.

Want to sit up high? GOOD! Puts more money in my pocket!

NL7W

06-01-2008, 02:28 AM

No problem at all with me. I have a lot of my investments in energy futures.

I started doing that when I noticed a lot more SUVs on the roads.

Want to sit up high? GOOD! Puts more money in my pocket!

More pointless diversion from Queenie. It's too hot for you to debate me directly. You'd lose.

Futures are quite risky, young man. Hold on to your heinie; you'll will be burned for multiple times more than any initial investment. I figure your investment choices to be as poor as your inability to logically debate and stay on-point.

N4VGB

06-01-2008, 02:52 AM

I have a lot of my investments in energy futures.

I'd as soon roll dice as play the commodity markets, big winners and big losers daily. :eek:

Put all your money in oil company stocks, let us know how rich you become. :rolleyes:

I'll even let you mow my yard, after you go bust! :)

N2RJ

06-01-2008, 03:25 AM

More pointless diversion from Queenie. It's too hot for you to debate me directly. You'd lose.

Futures are quite risky, young man. Hold on to your heinie; you'll will be burned for multiple times more than any initial investment. I figure your investment choices to be as poor as your inability to logically debate and stay on-point.

Nah, don't worry Stevie.

You're over the hill, so you're cautious, and foolish. I can understand that, old man.

You're just pissed off because I profit at your expense. That's life. Get used to it.

FWIW, energy is finite, and the demand certainly isn't going down. Even if we reduce demand, China and India are ramping up.

N2RJ

06-01-2008, 03:27 AM

I'd as soon roll dice as play the commodity markets, big winners and big losers daily. :eek:

Put all your money in oil company stocks, let us know how rich you become. :rolleyes:

I'll even let you mow my yard, after you go bust! :)

I doubt you'll be around when I retire. You'll pretty much be worm food when it's time for me to withdraw from my retirement nest egg.

And besides, weren't you telling me I should trot on back to Trinidad? When I retire I may very well do that. Cost of living there is a tiny fraction of what it is here, and if ham radio is still around, being DX is a lot more fun. Even if I keep my money in a savings account and do nothing with it, I'll be able to retire and live like a king.

Toodles.

N4VGB

06-01-2008, 03:35 AM

I doubt you'll be around when I retire. You'll pretty much be worm food when it's time for me to withdraw from my retirement nest egg.

LOL! :D

Nothing like a 30yo sucker that thinks he's got a guarantee on life, maybe, maybe not? :p

N2RJ

06-01-2008, 03:39 AM

LOL! :D

Nothing like a 30yo sucker that thinks he's got a guarantee on life, maybe, maybe not? :p

I'm talking about retirement, not life and death.

Either way, I won't be mowing lawns for you. Hate to bust your bubble. :P

P.S. 29, not 30 yet!

n2ize

06-01-2008, 05:17 AM

I'm talking about retirement, not life and death.

Either way, I won't be mowing lawns for you. Hate to bust your bubble. :P

P.S. 29, not 30 yet!

At 29 you still have a long way to go. Play it smart. Don't expect anything to be there for you and don't depend on anyone but yourself. Expect some hard knocks and some unfair breaks along the way. We all get clobbered at one time or another. Keep that in mind and you'll succeed and do quite well.

I have a friend who is now 50 and is just getting back into the work world after some hard breaks. It's hard but keeping a positive attitude and being persistent is the key through which he'll succeed.

K3XR

06-04-2008, 05:43 PM

It's not easy being green....just plain crazy.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=66090

N2RJ

06-04-2008, 05:57 PM

At 29 you still have a long way to go. Play it smart. Don't expect anything to be there for you and don't depend on anyone but yourself. Expect some hard knocks and some unfair breaks along the way. We all get clobbered at one time or another. Keep that in mind and you'll succeed and do quite well.

I have a friend who is now 50 and is just getting back into the work world after some hard breaks. It's hard but keeping a positive attitude and being persistent is the key through which he'll succeed.

Way ahead of you. I grew up poor. Not going to be poor again.

K3XR

06-04-2008, 06:02 PM

Crank up the drill.....

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200806/COM20080604c.html

kf6rdn

06-04-2008, 06:39 PM

It's not easy being green....just plain crazy.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=66090

Wasnt that a quote from Kermit the frog?
:D

N2RJ

06-04-2008, 06:57 PM

Crank up the drill.....

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200806/COM20080604c.html

Sure. BIG OIL has the money to buy the best Government it can.

The thing is that drilling for more oil and lowering prices isn't going to fatten their profit line.

Demand went up, supply never caught up, BIG OIL reaps in more profits. Do you really think they'd want to produce more oil and refined products and lower their profits?

w2amr

06-04-2008, 07:24 PM

Sure. BIG OIL has the money to buy the best Government it can.

The thing is that drilling for more oil and lowering prices isn't going to fatten their profit line.

Demand went up, supply never caught up, BIG OIL reaps in more profits. Do you really think they'd want to produce more oil and refined products and lower their profits?You are talikng to a machine.

K3XR

06-04-2008, 08:18 PM

Could oil cost the DEMS an election??

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=26817

W8EJO

06-06-2008, 01:26 PM

Lawmakers Split on Drilling for Vast Amounts of Oil in USA
By Josiah Ryan
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
June 06, 2008

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200806/NAT20080606b.html

If you guessed that the Dems are against drilling & Republicans are for drilling, go to the head of the class.

KD0DKI

06-06-2008, 02:28 PM

Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less

Sign the petition!

http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659

I guess thinking things throught doesn't count.

N1LAF

06-08-2008, 11:50 PM

I think we need to look at this from an economic point of view:

1. If oil companies make a percentage of the price of a barrel of oil, and oil prices increase by 500%, oil company profits will also increase by 500%.

2. It is in the economic best interest for oil companies to invest in the technology involving oil production. Investments in oil technology to reduce cost shifts the aggregate demand, short run aggregate supply, and long run aggregate supply to the right (increase). The end result is higher GDP (growth) and price levels do not increase due to technology investments.

3. Since the demand for oil and gas is very inelastic, a small increase to production will shift short run aggregate supply to the right (increase) slightly, resulting in a significant price drop. Aggregate demand changes little.

4. The last time gas prices increased like this was in the 1970's but there are no gas lines today, unlike the 70's. Can anyone guess why and explain the reason? If no one answers correctly, I'll disclose why we don't have the gas lines in a few days.

ac4r

06-08-2008, 11:54 PM

Get the speculators out of the oil futures market. Pass a law that requires buyers must take delivery of cruide within 10 days and the speculators are out of the picture.

N2RJ

06-09-2008, 12:34 AM

N2RJ

06-09-2008, 12:35 AM

Get the speculators out of the oil futures market. Pass a law that requires buyers must take delivery of cruide within 10 days and the speculators are out of the picture.

Yeah that's the ticket. Government controls! :rolleyes:

NL7W

06-09-2008, 12:41 AM

Because unlike the 70's there is no shortage?

Ah, there is a worldwide shortage!

85 million barrels / day are being produced today. Today's per day demand is almost 87 million barrels.

Makes me go, "Hmm..."

Drill here, drill now, pay less. It's all about world-wide supply and demand. The faster we become less dependent of foreign oil sources, the better off our economy will be. We'll strengthen our own economy with a hundred thousand or more high-paying and stable oil industry jobs, reduce our foreign dependence, and tell those damned speculators America is ready, willing, and able to wean itself from the tits of unstable, foreign sources -- chiefly the OPEC cartel.

Our NIMBY's and environ-nazi's will break the back of this Nation with their suicidal activities.

Nuff said...

K7RQ

06-09-2008, 12:56 AM

Here In Jersey the oil companies have pushed hard over the years, to change the law to make us pump our own gas. Their big selling point was, cheaper prices. Well we still aren't pumping our gas, and prices are the same or in some cases lower then in states where you pump your own.

Was anybody so naive as to believe that the dealers in the states where you are allowed to pump your own gas were going to pass the resulting savings on to the customers? Here in Oregon, we are not allowed to pump our own. And in Washington and California, where you can, it costs more than it does here.
Hal, K7RQ

NL7W

06-09-2008, 01:00 AM

Was anybody so naive as to believe that the dealers in the states where you are allowed to pump your own gas were going to pass the resulting savings on to the customers? Here in Oregon, we are not allowed to pump our own. And in Washington and California, where you can, it costs more than it does here.
Hal, K7RQ

What's Oregon's per gallon gasoline tax as compared to WA and CA? More or less?

Just wondering...

ac4r

06-09-2008, 01:17 AM

Because unlike the 70's there is no shortage?]

I thought you lefties were big on government control.

N2RJ

06-09-2008, 02:36 AM

]

I thought you lefties were big on government control.

1. I'm not a leftie. (registered republican, as a matter of fact, I even voted for Romney!)

2. The RIGHT has made far more advances in big government within the last 8 years or so.

3. Both left and right favor whatever lines their own pockets and keeps the populace under control - i.e. big government.

N2RJ

06-09-2008, 02:42 AM

Ah, there is a worldwide shortage!

85 million barrels / day are being produced today. Today's per day demand is almost 87 million barrels.

Makes me go, "Hmm..."

I'll believe it when I see it.

I see no gas rationing and no gas stations running out of gas, even though bigger and bigger vehicles are pulling up at the pump and filling up.

Every time I go, gas is available, and I can pump 10-15 gallons (a full tank) with no problem.

So where exactly is the shortage?

Drill here, drill now, pay less. It's all about world-wide supply and demand. The faster we become less dependent of foreign oil sources, the better off our economy will be. We'll strengthen our own economy with a hundred thousand or more high-paying and stable oil industry jobs, reduce our foreign dependence, and tell those damned speculators America is ready, willing, and able to wean itself from the tits of unstable, foreign sources -- chiefly the OPEC cartel.

Ah, so that's the reason. Like many righties you're only interested in lining your own pockets. Screw the environment and screw everyone else. Despite the fact that drilling ANWR will only cut 75 cents from the price of oil by 2025 (http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/energy/anwr-drilling-cut--cents-oil-prices-doe-says/) you want to drill now so that your bank account will be fatter! You don't care about us, like many righties you only care about yourself!

N1LAF

06-09-2008, 02:50 AM

Because unlike the 70's there is no shortage?

There was no world shortage in the 70's. There is another reason - important piece of the economic puzzle.

K7RQ

06-09-2008, 02:51 AM

It's lower here than Washington, at least. Last year WA tacked on an extra state tax, just in time for the escalation.
Regular was about $4.12 here today.

Hal, K7RQ

KD5ZPG

06-09-2008, 02:53 AM

I'll believe it when I see it.

I see no gas rationing and no gas stations running out of gas, even though bigger and bigger vehicles are pulling up at the pump and filling up.

Every time I go, gas is available, and I can pump 10-15 gallons (a full tank) with no problem.

So where exactly is the shortage?

Ah, so that's the reason. Like many righties you're only interested in lining your own pockets. Screw the environment and screw everyone else. Despite the fact that drilling ANWR will only cut 75 cents from the price of oil by 2025 (http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/energy/anwr-drilling-cut--cents-oil-prices-doe-says/) you want to drill now so that your bank account will be fatter! You don't care about us, like many righties you only care about yourself!

Now let me get this straight...............

The projected output of ANWR would be 1,000,000 barrels of oil a day but Democrats claim that amount is not enough to help lower gas prices, YET, these same Democrats pass a bill to stop putting 75,000 barrels a day into the Strategic Oil Reserve so that it will lower gas prices and curb market speculation......... :rolleyes:

NL7W

06-09-2008, 02:58 AM

Now let me get this straight...............

The projected output of ANWR would be 1,000,000 barrels of oil a day but Democrats claim that amount is not enough to help lower gas prices, YET, these same Democrats pass a bill to stop putting 75,000 barrels a day into the Strategic Oil Reserve so that it will lower gas prices and curb market speculation......... :rolleyes:

If that's true, I'm LMAO! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:

The trans-Alaska pipeline, at it's pumping peak near the beginning of delivery in the 70's and early 80's, delivered 1 million barrels of oil per day to the Valdez Terminal. Whether or not the new turbine pumping systems coming on-line can exceed that amount is unknown to me.

BTW, I completed a high-paying temp job along the northern half of the pipeline, two years ago. I had regulated, but unfettered, access to the comm/control rooms at pipeline pump stations. At that time, oil throughput hovered in the low to mid 300K barrels / day mark -- due to slumping North Slope production. To significantly raise the level flowing through the pipe today, new fields need to come on-line in the Arctic.

73.

N1LAF

06-09-2008, 02:59 AM

I'll believe it when I see it.

I see no gas rationing and no gas stations running out of gas, even though bigger and bigger vehicles are pulling up at the pump and filling up.

Every time I go, gas is available, and I can pump 10-15 gallons (a full tank) with no problem.

So where exactly is the shortage?

Ah, so that's the reason. Like many righties you're only interested in lining your own pockets. Screw the environment and screw everyone else. Despite the fact that drilling ANWR will only cut 75 cents from the price of oil by 2025 (http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/energy/anwr-drilling-cut--cents-oil-prices-doe-says/) you want to drill now so that your bank account will be fatter! You don't care about us, like many righties you only care about yourself!

Wrong wrong, try again. Unless your link comes from an economist, you can throw it away. What does the government know anyways.

High oil and gas prices hurt the working poor more than anyone else. Do liberals care about them? High gas and diesel fuel prices are transferred to the price of goods, so everyone shares this pain all over again. The conservative Christian righties donate more to charities from personal income than any other group. What does that say for the liberals? Righties comments are dismissed for lack of merit.

Ryan, just a quick note - I come from a very poor beginning, just like yourself. Both of us are self made. You should be proud of your accomplishments, you have my respect.

N1LAF

06-09-2008, 03:04 AM

W4HAY

06-16-2008, 11:31 AM

...Anyone want to guess why we don't have gas lines today as comparable to the late 1970's?
That's easy! Lil' Jimmy Carter is no longer relevant (not that he ever really was)!

*****
Ramirez (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/cartoons/toon061608.gif)

*****
...Not only did Mr. Gabrielli say there is no appetite for stopping offshore projects in his country. He went further. "Brazil has one of the freest and most investor-oriented regulation in the world. Even freer than the United States of America," he said, referring to the climate for oil exploration.

That may be so, but it would be interesting to know why, given Brazil's prominent embrace of socialism. It could be that the country is changing. After all there is now private-sector competition in the oil industry. Yet it is also worth noting that the Brazilian government has a 58% controlling stake in Petrobras's voting shares and 32% of its total shares. This means that some of Petrobras profits go straight to the government's bottom line, giving the politicians more money to spend on bribing their constituents.

In the U.S., Congress doesn't have nearly such a vested interest in a successful oil industry. What good are corporate profits if they go to shareholders, pensioners and employees? Congress has even been denied the windfall profits tax. For American politicians there is a much greater incentive to respond to the concentrated power of the special interest group known as the "greens."

Why Brazil Isn't Ashamed to Exploit Its Oil
(http://online.wsj.com/article/the_americas.html)

K3XR

06-16-2008, 12:17 PM

Check your gauge DEMS....

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=27000

W4HAY

06-17-2008, 04:14 PM

Energy: The green light given by the Fish and Wildlife Service for oil drilling off Alaska is being portrayed as an OK to hurt polar bears. But there are so many polar bears, it's the drillers who should worry.

Alaska's Polar Bears: Going With The Floe? (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=298509749222150)

N2RJ

06-17-2008, 04:27 PM

Now let me get this straight...............

The projected output of ANWR would be 1,000,000 barrels of oil a day but Democrats claim that amount is not enough to help lower gas prices,

No, that's incorrect. Democrats aren't claiming that amount is enough to help lower gas prices.

Rather, the department of energy is.

YET, these same Democrats pass a bill to stop putting 75,000 barrels a day into the Strategic Oil Reserve so that it will lower gas prices and curb market speculation......... :rolleyes:

Yes, because the squeaky wheels get the grease. I oppose not filling the SPR, because it's important to our national security. But because people are complaining, they had to do something.

K3XR

06-17-2008, 04:34 PM

Drill baby drill....

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121322872046666269.html

N4VGB

06-17-2008, 04:36 PM

The Canadians are drilling the Arctic Circle like crazy right now. By the time Congress catches on, all the oil will be gone anyway. We can buy it at inflated prices from the Canadians. Let the Canadians have the jobs and profits. We'll be good little Americans and just keep paying. :D

ab1ga

06-17-2008, 04:55 PM

The truth is that gasoline is very inelastic. The price increases (300%) is not enough to change demand significantly. Being this inelastic, an increase of supply (gasoline) to the daily inventory will have large price effects.

Inelasticity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(economics)

Anyone want to guess why we don't have gas lines today as comparable to the late 1970's?

I don't remember lines in the late 70's, more like the early 70's, when the Nixon wage and price controls were in effect. Tankers off the coast, and all that.

Plus, it's important to remember that the 70's didn't have a world supply shortage, but rather an Arab oil embargo. At that time alternate supplies from the North Sea had become available, so we bought from Europe instead.

NL7W

06-17-2008, 04:56 PM

Over 841,000 Have Signed the Petition the Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less Petition presented by American Solutions.

It'll be over a million in no time.

http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659

N2RJ

06-17-2008, 05:11 PM

Well duh. People are sheep. They foolishly believe that drilling now will have an impact on oil prices.

KB1QBZ

06-17-2008, 05:59 PM

Drill baby drill....

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121322872046666269.html

Wow, another opinion piece presented as if it proves something.

So let's look at the numbers:

Depending on who you ask, the U.S. consumes something like 20,000,000 barrels of oil a day. Some sources put it at 21,000,000, but let's use the round number.

So adding 1,000,000 barrels a day gives us 5% more oil, which means approximately 5% less price at the pump. All of 20 or 25 cents (the Dept of Energy actually says it's less than that).

Whoopdef***ingdoo!!!

By the way, a million barrels a day is only about 1/86th of current world consumption, and since prices are set on world markets, that means that the decrease would be more like 1/86th of current prices.

Unless you're going to admit that much of the price is speculation -- because that argues that there's no reason to drill if the price runup is just speculation.

Now, 1,000,000 barrels a day assumes that ALL the oil drilled in ANWR and offshore would go to the U.S., which given current deregulated markets is not at all a safe assumption. Phil Gramm (John McClain's "economics expert") has seen to that.

That's also assuming that the oil companies don't just keep the extra profit, or that the speculators can't rip us off more than they are already.

And, furthermore, it assumes that the Saudis will keep pumping at their current rate, that Mexico won't totally collapse (as it appears ready to do), that other oil fields in the U.S. will not start faltering (and we know that many of them are in their final stages), that the 'stans will get on-line, that Russia won't withhold its oil, that ...

So here we have it -- close to a million morons signing a petition to expand the capacity of the buggywhip factory.

NL7W

06-17-2008, 06:20 PM

Wow, another opinion piece presented as if it proves something.

So let's look at the numbers:

Depending on who you ask, the U.S. consumes something like 20,000,000 barrels of oil a day. Some sources put it at 21,000,000, but let's use the round number.

So adding 1,000,000 barrels a day gives us 5% more oil, which means approximately 5% less price at the pump. All of 20 or 25 cents (the Dept of Energy actually says it's less than that).

Whoopdef***ingdoo!!!

By the way, a million barrels a day is only about 1/86th of current world consumption, and since prices are set on world markets, that means that the decrease would be more like 1/86th of current prices.

Unless you're going to admit that much of the price is speculation -- because that argues that there's no reason to drill if the price runup is just speculation.

Now, 1,000,000 barrels a day assumes that ALL the oil drilled in ANWR and offshore would go to the U.S., which given current deregulated markets is not at all a safe assumption. Phil Gramm (John McClain's "economics expert") has seen to that.

That's also assuming that the oil companies don't just keep the extra profit, or that the speculators can't rip us off more than they are already.

And, furthermore, it assumes that the Saudis will keep pumping at their current rate, that Mexico won't totally collapse (as it appears ready to do), that other oil fields in the U.S. will not start faltering (and we know that many of them are in their final stages), that the 'stans will get on-line, that Russia won't withhold its oil, that ...

So here we have it -- close to a million morons signing a petition to expand the capacity of the buggywhip factory.

Why is it the Liberal Lunes believe that ANWR drilling is the only sweet spot for oil? We have HUGE reserves throughout the lesser-48, to include off-shore along the eastern, western, and southern coasts making our little Alaskan patch a minuscule portion of the total equation.

World's daily supply: 86.5 to 87 million barrels
World's daily consumption: 85 million barrels

This overly tight supply is the reason for speculators' prices. It wouldn't take much to upset the tight balance. The world is walking a supply/demand tight rope. Unless supplies are increased, the rope will snap.

And you think prices are high now...

W8EJO

06-17-2008, 06:35 PM

The truth is that gasoline is very inelastic. The price increases (300%) is not enough to change demand significantly. Being this inelastic, an increase of supply (gasoline) to the daily inventory will have large price effects.

Inelasticity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(economics)

Anyone want to guess why we don't have gas lines today as comparable to the late 1970's?

Demand for petroleum products is not as inelastic as we may think. U.S. consumption is down over 10,000,000 barrels (2008 vs 2007) for the first 23 weeks of the year. Same holds true worldwide with the exception of a few countries (China, India, Latin America).

N1LAF

06-18-2008, 01:50 AM

4. The last time gas prices increased like this was in the 1970's but there are no gas lines today, unlike the 70's. Can anyone guess why and explain the reason? If no one answers correctly, I'll disclose why we don't have the gas lines in a few days.

Because unlike the 70's there is no shortage?

Partially correct. During the early 70's, we had the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, followed by long lines and price controls. Price controls is the wrong policy to take, it doesn't work. The price controls was suppose to be temporary, but held into the Carter administration. Carter did start lifting price controls, but not fast and enough to save the economy. Inflation occurred, and with price controls, it was not profitable to sell oil & gas to the US, so storage of raw oil was a problem, and the gas lines began again. One of the first things that Reagan as President was to remove price controls.

Now we are in a similar situation, but without price controls, we don't have that artificial shortage.

Cutting consumption isn't the only way to decrease price (ie decrease aggregate demand). The other way to decrease price is to increase output, which will increase short and long range aggregate supply.

The winner is ab1ga!! Great job!! The combination of price controls and inflation did Carter in.

N1LAF

06-18-2008, 01:54 AM

Demand for petroleum products is not as inelastic as we may think. U.S. consumption is down over 10,000,000 barrels (2008 vs 2007) for the first 23 weeks of the year. Same holds true worldwide with the exception of a few countries (China, India, Latin America).

I wasn't trying to imply that the gas and oil market was totally inelastic, but I bet it is highly inelastic.

N1LAF

06-18-2008, 02:08 AM

NL7W

06-18-2008, 02:21 AM

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Most voters favor the resumption of offshore drilling in the United States and expect it to lower prices at the pump, even as John McCain has announced his support for states that want to explore for oil and gas off their coasts.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey—conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue--finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose).

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that gas prices will go down if offshore oil drilling is allowed, although 27% don’t believe it. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of conservatives say offshore drilling is at least somewhat likely to drive prices down. That view is shared by 57% of moderates and 50% of liberal voters.

Nearly all voters are worried about rising gas and energy prices, with 79% very concerned and 16% somewhat concerned.

McCain is expected to formally call today (Tuesday) for the lifting of the federal moratorium on states being allowed to explore off their coasts for oil and gas deposits. While acknowledging it is only a short-term response, he has described it as a good first step toward reducing U.S. energy dependence on overseas sources.

The Outer Continental Shelf moratorium, passed in 1981, bans exploration for offshore natural gas and oil deposits. Barack Obama, McCain’s opponent for the White House, voted against an effort to lift the ban last year in the Senate. He argued that it was only a short-term solution. National Democratic Party leaders and most environmental organizations for years have strongly opposed efforts to explore for oil off the coast of the U.S.

According to the new survey, 85% of Republicans are in favor of offshore drilling as opposed to 57% of Democrats and 60% of unaffiliated voters. Those who call themselves conservatives favor such drilling 84% to 46% of liberals and 59% of self-designated moderates.

African-American voters are less supportive of such drilling than whites – 58% to 71%.

Women are more skeptical than men about the impact such drilling will have on gas prices: Nearly one out of three male voters (32%) say prices are very likely to go down, a view shared by only 23% of women.

Four out of five Republicans (79%) think prices are likely to fall thanks to offshore drilling, a view shared by only 55% of Democrats. Sixty percent (60%) of unaffiliated voters expect it to happen.

Voters also believe 61% to 22% that oil companies should be required to reinvest at least a portion of their profits into alternative energy research. On this question, liberal and moderate voters are strongly supportive of the proposal while conservatives are more evenly divided (47% of conservatives in favor, 35% opposed)

Ref: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/67_support_offshore_drilling_64_expect_it_will_low er_prices

This poll, and the May Gallop covering the same topic, reflect what I've been saying here for weeks, if not months. I am the GAUGE!

GET REAL, LIBERALS! Your losing the NIMBY battle... the People are speaking!

Toodles.

N2RJ

06-18-2008, 02:27 AM

NL7W

06-18-2008, 02:28 AM

NL7W

06-18-2008, 02:35 AM

You know how you guys are always arguing against the majority consensus of global climate change/global warming... Please at least apply equal logic to all arguments. Flip flopping is getting a bit tiresome.

I laugh!

Actually...

47% Say Global Warming Very Serious Problem
Sunday, April 06, 2008

Forty-seven percent (47%) of American adults say that Global Warming is a Very Serious problem. A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that another 26% say it is Somewhat Serious.

Perceptions of the issue divide sharply along generational lines. Among those 40 and older, just 39% believe Global Warming is a Very Serious problem. Fifty-one percent (51%) of thirty-somethings consider Global Warming Very Serious, a number that rises to 62% among adults under 30.

Forty-seven percent (47%) believe human activity is primarily to blame for Global Warming while 34% believe long-term planetary trends are the culprit. Most Democrats blame human activity while most Republicans blame long-term trends. Younger adults are more likely than their elders to blame human activity.

Reaction to a new advocacy commercial highlights these partisan and generational differences. The ad begins with a tribute to the nation’s past successes which generates a positive response from all viewers. However, when Global Warming is mentioned, the divide begins. An earlier survey found that just 34% believe Global Warming can be stopped.

While Global Warming is seen by nearly half the nation as a Very Serious problem, the economy has emerged as the top issue of Election 2008. Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say there is a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. Twenty-nine percent (29%) disagree and say there is no conflict while another 29% are not sure. The perception of a conflict cuts across most partisan and demographic lines.

Twenty-nine percent (29%) currently believe the federal government is doing a good or excellent job protecting the environment. Thirty-two percent (32%) give them credit for doing a fair job while 33% give the federal government poor marks in this arena.

Thirty-one percent (31%) consider Al Gore an expert on Global Warming. That figure includes 48% of Democrats,12% of Republicans, and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Ref: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/47_say_global_warming_very_serious_problem

Back to our regular programming...

N2RJ

06-18-2008, 02:36 AM

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Most voters favor the resumption of offshore drilling in the United States and expect it to lower prices at the pump, even as John McCain has announced his support for states that want to explore for oil and gas off their coasts.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey—conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue--finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose).

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that gas prices will go down if offshore oil drilling is allowed, although 27% don’t believe it. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of conservatives say offshore drilling is at least somewhat likely to drive prices down. That view is shared by 57% of moderates and 50% of liberal voters.

Guess what - a lot of people believe in big foot, santa claus and the easter bunny too.

These people aren't economists or experts in energy pricing. The experts (US Department of Energy) have already said that drilling now isn't going to have a significant effect on oil prices, maybe 75 cents per barrel of oil in 20 years. These are people with education (degrees) in economics and related fields. They're not joe layman, many of whom don't know squat about energy prices. Heck, most of those people probably don't know the real reason oil prices are increasing. Because Rush says if we drill here and drill now they'll be able to fill up their SUVs for $20, they believe him.

Nearly all voters are worried about rising gas and energy prices, with 79% very concerned and 16% somewhat concerned.

I'm worried to, but at the same time my own energy and transportation needs are taken care of, with plenty of room to spare.

McCain is expected to formally call today (Tuesday) for the lifting of the federal moratorium on states being allowed to explore off their coasts for oil and gas deposits. While acknowledging it is only a short-term response, he has described it as a good first step toward reducing U.S. energy dependence on overseas sources.

Yeah, that should appease right wingers who are still mad at him for supporting amnesty for illegal aliens... :eek:

The Outer Continental Shelf moratorium, passed in 1981, bans exploration for offshore natural gas and oil deposits. Barack Obama, McCain’s opponent for the White House, voted against an effort to lift the ban last year in the Senate. He argued that it was only a short-term solution. National Democratic Party leaders and most environmental organizations for years have strongly opposed efforts to explore for oil off the coast of the U.S.

So when the short term is up, what do you propose?

According to the new survey, 85% of Republicans are in favor of offshore drilling as opposed to 57% of Democrats and 60% of unaffiliated voters. Those who call themselves conservatives favor such drilling 84% to 46% of liberals and 59% of self-designated moderates.

That proves nothing other than Republicans falsely believe that drilling for more oil will lower the price.

African-American voters are less supportive of such drilling than whites – 58% to 71%.

Women are more skeptical than men about the impact such drilling will have on gas prices: Nearly one out of three male voters (32%) say prices are very likely to go down, a view shared by only 23% of women.

Four out of five Republicans (79%) think prices are likely to fall thanks to offshore drilling, a view shared by only 55% of Democrats. Sixty percent (60%) of unaffiliated voters expect it to happen.

Voters also believe 61% to 22% that oil companies should be required to reinvest at least a portion of their profits into alternative energy research. On this question, liberal and moderate voters are strongly supportive of the proposal while conservatives are more evenly divided (47% of conservatives in favor, 35% opposed)

Ref: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/67_support_offshore_drilling_64_expect_it_will_low er_prices

This poll, and the May Gallop covering the same topic, reflect what I've been saying here for weeks, if not months. I am the GAUGE!

GET REAL, LIBERALS! Your losing the NIMBY battle... the People are speaking!

Toodles.

Oh sure, and I'm sure those same people would be in favor of Government subsidized gas and healthcare too, as well as pulling out of Iraq. :)

N2RJ

06-18-2008, 02:37 AM

I laugh!

Actually...

47% Say Global Warming Very Serious Problem
Sunday, April 06, 2008

Forty-seven percent (47%) of American adults say that Global Warming is a Very Serious problem. A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that another 26% say it is Somewhat Serious.

Perceptions of the issue divide sharply along generational lines. Among those 40 and older, just 39% believe Global Warming is a Very Serious problem. Fifty-one percent (51%) of thirty-somethings consider Global Warming Very Serious, a number that rises to 62% among adults under 30.

Forty-seven percent (47%) believe human activity is primarily to blame for Global Warming while 34% believe long-term planetary trends are the culprit. Most Democrats blame human activity while most Republicans blame long-term trends. Younger adults are more likely than their elders to blame human activity.

Reaction to a new advocacy commercial highlights these partisan and generational differences. The ad begins with a tribute to the nation’s past successes which generates a positive response from all viewers. However, when Global Warming is mentioned, the divide begins. An earlier survey found that just 34% believe Global Warming can be stopped.

While Global Warming is seen by nearly half the nation as a Very Serious problem, the economy has emerged as the top issue of Election 2008. Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say there is a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. Twenty-nine percent (29%) disagree and say there is no conflict while another 29% are not sure. The perception of a conflict cuts across most partisan and demographic lines.

Twenty-nine percent (29%) currently believe the federal government is doing a good or excellent job protecting the environment. Thirty-two percent (32%) give them credit for doing a fair job while 33% give the federal government poor marks in this arena.

Thirty-one percent (31%) consider Al Gore an expert on Global Warming. That figure includes 48% of Democrats,12% of Republicans, and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Ref: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/47_say_global_warming_very_serious_problem

Back to our regular programming...

Majority consensus among scientists, not the average layman who has as much clue about climate science as you do about energy prices. :)

N1LAF

06-18-2008, 02:41 AM

A majority of people believe in things like god and santa claus too.

That doesn't make them any more right.

You know how you guys are always arguing against the majority consensus of global climate change/global warming... Please at least apply equal logic to all arguments. Flip flopping is getting a bit tiresome.

Ryan, you are barking up the wrong tree with your last comment. My remarks about majority consensus is that those who are fixated by the fact that most scientists believe one way, by joining the crowd, you may miss other possibilities, as I was applying it to discovery/global warming.

I am not arguing against majority consensus, because most of the time, majority consensus is right. My point is when discussion of an inexact science, such as global warming, or other things of unknown and complex variables, don't fall into the trap that since most believe this way, it MUST be right, keep an open mind to possibilities that the majority may not be right, such as flat/round earth and our galaxy being the only one existing and the center of the universe.

Issues like oil supply and demand, economics, and politics are generally well known, and can even predict what happens on events.

Logic is applied evenly, its that the subject matter and its predictability is not even.

N5NPO

06-18-2008, 02:45 AM

A majority of people believe in things like god and santa claus too.

You are right... And at one time a majority of people belived the earth was the center of the solar system and that the Sun revolved around it. The supposed authorities on the matter said it, and you had better not question it.
Of course nobody in the MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE bunch is like that.

N1LAF

06-18-2008, 02:54 AM

Because Rush says if we drill here and drill now they'll be able to fill up their SUVs for $20, they believe him.

No, because economics says that a small supply change with aggregate demand being very inelastic will have large price changes.

Its based on Laws of Economics, not what some talking head says.

Check this out: Peak Oil - Inelastic Supply meets Inelastic Demand (http://valuesystem.livejournal.com/11447.html)
The Details: Peak Oil, Economics 101, and The Worst Depression (http://valuesystem.livejournal.com/12433.html)
Multimedia Presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7vGDwGLU7s

NL7W

06-18-2008, 02:56 AM

Majority consensus among scientists, not the average layman who has as much clue about climate science as you do about energy prices. :)

You did notice the older generations, not you wet-behind-the-ear types, aren't as gullible and swayed by the complex global warming, now "climate change" bluster. They've been around, and know BS when they see and hear it.

Try again, young man...

n2ize

06-18-2008, 03:05 AM

Guess what - a lot of people believe in big foot, santa claus and the easter bunny too.

These people aren't economists or experts in energy pricing. The experts (US Department of Energy) have already said that drilling now isn't going to have a significant effect on oil prices, maybe 75 cents per barrel of oil in 20 years. These are people with education (degrees) in economics and related fields. They're not joe layman, many of whom don't know squat about energy prices. Heck, most of those people probably don't know the real reason oil prices are increasing. Because Rush says if we drill here and drill now they'll be able to fill up their SUVs for $20, they believe him.

Ryan, you're barking up the wrong tree. Education, knowledge, expertise means nothing to the neokon mindset. Don't you know that many of these neokons hate education and knowledge and consider it to be both communism and devils work.

The only thing they beleive in is Rush Limbaugh and plain ol' fashon hawse sense..

N4VGB

06-18-2008, 03:07 AM

NL7W

06-18-2008, 03:12 AM

Ryan, you're barking up the wrong tree. Education, knowledge, expertise means nothing to the neokon mindset. Don't you know that many of these neokons hate education and knowledge and consider it to be both communism and devils work.

The only thing they beleive in is Rush Limbaugh and plain ol' fashon hawse sense..

Actually, education, comprehension not knowledge, and experience (from which expertise is derived) are valued traits of Conservatives. They mean (not means) something. We aren't swayed by Libs' touchy feelings, illogical passions, and destructive and socially inept radicalism.

Toodles.

N1LAF

06-18-2008, 03:18 AM

The only thing they beleive in is Rush Limbaugh and plain ol' fashon hawse sense..

As opposed to Al Franken, liberal, from failed Air America?

n2ize

06-18-2008, 04:03 AM

As opposed to Al Franken, liberal, from failed Air America?

I find that I can generally get a pretty good idea of what the hot topics and opinions of the neokon talk show hosts are by simply looking at the hot threads on this forum. It seems that a lot of people out here get the majority of their news and opinions from right wing talk radio, i.e. Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Boortz, etc.

KB1QBZ

06-18-2008, 05:01 AM

No, because economics says that a small supply change with aggregate demand being very inelastic will have large price changes.

Ummmm ... no. It doesn't at all.

You're pointing to a theoretical peak oil situation where the price of petroleum is rapidly increasing because there just isn't enough available to satisfy demand.

But we're not in that situation. As has been noted again and again and again -- everyone who wants petroleum can get petroleum. As a whole bunch of people on this forum have pointed out, there's still a lot more oil out there that hasn't been tapped yet. The charts you're looking at are based on inadequate petroleum quantities, and that's not the situation.

In other words, we're nowhere near the vertical parts of the curves you're showing. The increases in oil prices are from other sources -- but mainly are a function of:

1. At least 50% of the runup in the price of petroleum is the fall of the U.S. dollar. Get the dollar up and the price will come down.

2. It's clear that at least 20% of the runup in the price is "speculation" -- people throwing money in the market. I don't know if they meet the strict dictionary definition of "speculator", but all that money in the market is creating a bubble.

By the way, we can see that the price of petroleum has not been exhibiting large price changes for small increases in available petroleum. The Saudis are adding 300,000 barrels/day -- yet we haven't seen prices come down. Demand in the U.S. is down by over 1%, yet we haven't seen prices come down.

When you have only 3% of the world's oil but consume 20% of the world's oil, you're going to be at the mercy of the world and the energy traders. The only viable answer is not to change the situation by miniscule amounts like 1,000,000 barrels/day to an economy that uses 21,000,000 barrels per day (a 5% change at best). That's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

The answer is to change the game -- and that means alternate energy and conservation.

ab1ga

06-18-2008, 04:36 PM

No, because economics says that a small supply change with aggregate demand being very inelastic will have large price changes.

Its based on Laws of Economics, not what some talking head says.

Check this out: Peak Oil - Inelastic Supply meets Inelastic Demand (http://valuesystem.livejournal.com/11447.html)
The Details: Peak Oil, Economics 101, and The Worst Depression (http://valuesystem.livejournal.com/12433.html)
Multimedia Presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7vGDwGLU7s

'LAF,

I am not sure that an inelastic demand / inelastic supply model is the best to use to describe oil price behavior, and this has a direct impact on the ability of drilling ANWR, etc to affect laudatory price changes for the consumer.

I'd like to get ANWR out of the way first. The deposit is small, distant, and in the middle of a wildlife refuge. I believe that a lot of the opposition to drilling there is because it's a refuge and the cost-benefit of developing the site is not favorable. And if it's just one of many potential locations for new development, why pick the most contentious one? One can see the vested interest in increased Arctic development among Arctic region oil workers, but I can't figure out why legislation keeps being introduced targeting ANWR. Is there a real business reason or has ANWR become just a rallying cry?

Sorry for the diversion, back to the main point. I think the behavior of the oil markets and the gasoline markets (they are distinct) are showing pricing behavior not of inelastic demand/supply, but oligopolistic kinked pricing, with the difference that we haven't hit the "knee" yet. As long as consumers keep paying increased prices, prices will increase; when demand tapers off, the price will be reduced some, but only to the highest price consumers were willing to pay. As long as the producers can maintain their lifestyle at this market price, they will be able to forego maximum revenue to extend supply lifetime and maintain the price. This happened in the early 1970s, when oil suppliers chose to hold on to their stocks rather than sell them at the lower, controlled price. And it's important to remember that only a year or two ago, the price per barrel was half what it is today, and the producers were comfortably making ends meet then. At best the supply is inelastic on the increasing side only, so modestly decreased demand will have less effect than many hope.

The oligopolistic pricing behavior also makes the possibility of reduced prices through increased supply less probable than simple supply/demand arguments would indicate. Any new field, coastal or Arctic, will be developed by an oil company with an obligation to maximize benefit to its shareholders. So any oil from that field will hit the market at the same price as oil from existing sources! Even though cartels are illegal in the US, nothing prevents a supplier from looking at the current pricing levels and saying, "me, too."

The only break from this stranglehold is if one of the oligopolists breaks rank and tries to increase market share by reducing the price. General Mills tried this in the breakfast cereals market a few years ago, but I don't know how well the strategy panned out. Every time an OPEC price floor has broken it's been because a member nation has broken ranks or a non-OPEC supplier (Russia) has flooded the market to raise some fast cash. But everybody's so fat right now there's no reason to rock the boat. With one exception.

Iraqi oil could break the price lock. The reserves are the second highest in the world, you don't need to find new fields, and the Iraqis are going to need a lot of money to rebuild their country and therefore need to sell oil, even if they have to cut the price. So my modest proposal (thanks to J. Swift): don't drill ANWR, pump Iraq! Present them with a bill for our costs, and take it in oil, at cost, just enough each year to keep the rest of the market honest. :p:D

N1LAF

06-18-2008, 08:06 PM

Ummmm ... no. It doesn't at all.

You're pointing to a theoretical peak oil situation where the price of petroleum is rapidly increasing because there just isn't enough available to satisfy demand.

But we're not in that situation. As has been noted again and again and again -- everyone who wants petroleum can get petroleum. As a whole bunch of people on this forum have pointed out, there's still a lot more oil out there that hasn't been tapped yet. The charts you're looking at are based on inadequate petroleum quantities, and that's not the situation.

In other words, we're nowhere near the vertical parts of the curves you're showing. The increases in oil prices are from other sources -- but mainly are a function of:

1. At least 50% of the runup in the price of petroleum is the fall of the U.S. dollar. Get the dollar up and the price will come down.

2. It's clear that at least 20% of the runup in the price is "speculation" -- people throwing money in the market. I don't know if they meet the strict dictionary definition of "speculator", but all that money in the market is creating a bubble.

By the way, we can see that the price of petroleum has not been exhibiting large price changes for small increases in available petroleum. The Saudis are adding 300,000 barrels/day -- yet we haven't seen prices come down. Demand in the U.S. is down by over 1%, yet we haven't seen prices come down.

When you have only 3% of the world's oil but consume 20% of the world's oil, you're going to be at the mercy of the world and the energy traders. The only viable answer is not to change the situation by miniscule amounts like 1,000,000 barrels/day to an economy that uses 21,000,000 barrels per day (a 5% change at best). That's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

The answer is to change the game -- and that means alternate energy and conservation.

1. Because supply could be decreasing due to consumption from other countries, thus supply is close to demand. With more oill coming into the market, I expect prices to drop, theoretically, but not overnight. Speculation market is a variable I cannot predict what will happen.

2. You are right about the value of the dollar and how it affects oil prices.

3. What alternative fuel can I use in my car right now, that is available to make it practical? They all have their problems. I do my part, I use those 14 watt curly bulbs, and I burn wood for home heating. 100 gallons of oil usage last winter. 3 cords of wood.

N1LAF

06-20-2008, 03:12 AM

The original Drill now thread..

w2amr

06-20-2008, 07:28 AM

I heard that the NJ legislature is about to permanently ban off shore drilling, and the governor will sign it into law. Good for them.

NL7W

06-20-2008, 08:36 AM

'LAF,

I am not sure that an inelastic demand / inelastic supply model is the best to use to describe oil price behavior, and this has a direct impact on the ability of drilling ANWR, etc to affect laudatory price changes for the consumer.

I'd like to get ANWR out of the way first. The deposit is small, distant, and in the middle of a wildlife refuge. I believe that a lot of the opposition to drilling there is because it's a refuge and the cost-benefit of developing the site is not favorable. And if it's just one of many potential locations for new development, why pick the most contentious one? One can see the vested interest in increased Arctic development among Arctic region oil workers, but I can't figure out why legislation keeps being introduced targeting ANWR. Is there a real business reason or has ANWR become just a rallying cry?

Yes, ANWR is a rallying cry for the lying, organized enviro-nazis in the lower-48. But, what the enviro-idiots don't know is the continued development of leases west of Prudhoe Bay on the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, NPRA -- a 23 million acre petroleum reserve in Alaska. I know, as I helped build the Alpine Field just north of Nuiqsut, Alaska, on it's eastern edge.

A BLM Update on NPRA:

Domestic energy production has gained wide-spread interest in both Congress and the Administration. Many people in Washington are calling on the nation to increase its investment in domestic energy resources to enhance national security. High energy prices in 2001, rolling blackouts in the West, the attacks of September 11th, and the collapse of industry giant Enron have kept energy issues in the limelight. Policy debate normally focuses on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), with relatively little attention paid to the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA). NPRA is a 23 million acre site on the northern coast of Alaska. In 1999 a federal lease sale was held in the northeastern region of the reserve and a number of exploration wells have been drilled that encountered oil and natural gas. The map below shows both NPRA and ANWR in relationship to Prudhoe Bay -- the central focus of petroleum exploration -- and the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System (TAPS).

Most Recent Action

On May 16th, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released its re-assessment of the undiscovered oil and natural gas resources within the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA). The last assessment was completed in 1980 and reported that the technically recoverable oil in the area on federal lands totaled between 0.3 and 5.4 billion barrels of oil (BBO). According to the new assessment, which includes an economic analysis of the technically recoverable resources, there is between 1.3 and 5.6 BBO that are considered economically recoverable at market prices between $22 and $30 per barrel. It also estimates that there is between 39.1 and 83.2 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas on federal lands within NPRA, but that the economic viability of these resources depends on transporting them to markets in the lower 48 states. According to the USGS fact sheet (045-02), the "increase in estimated oil resources is largely the result of the recognition of new plays based on oil accumulations recently discovered just east of NPRA." Included in the assessment is a comparison of the resources available in NPRA (using the 2002 assessment figures) and ANWR (using the 1998 assessment figures) that will be of great political interest as Congress begins to craft compromise energy legislation this summer. Additional details on the USGS assessment is available below. A Geotimes "web extra" on the assessment is available at http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/may02/WebExtra0517.html.

http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/NPRA_F1lg.gif
USGS Fact Sheet 045-02

Leasing Activities in NPRA

In 1923, President Harding set aside a 23 million acre petroleum reserve in Alaska to provide an emergency oil supply for the US Navy. The area, Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4, was placed under the management of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and renamed as the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska (NPRA) in 1976 by the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act. DOI sold several leases in the 1980s, but only two exploratory wells were drilled. Neither wells resulted in industry developing any petroleum resources. In May 1999, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) held another federal lease sale in the northeastern section of NPRA that resulted in 133 leases. Several exploratory wells have been drilled in these areas and many have encountered oil and gas resources. Additional wells are scheduled to be drilled in 2002. This northeastern section of NPRA is adjactant the Alpine oil field that was announced in 1996. The Alpine field is estimated to contain about 429 million barrels of recoverable oil.

Both BLM and the Minerals Management Service (MMS) are moving ahead with plans for future leasing activities in NPRA. BLM opened another NPRA lease sale in June 2002. MMS, which oversees oil and gas production from the outer continental shelf, announced in the September 19, 2001, Federal Register its consideration of three lease sales in the Beaufort Sea that is off the northeastern section of NPRA. Preleasing activities include a call for information and a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). These preparations would allow MMS to hold a lease sale in fall 2003.

USGS Assessment

In response to increasing interest in domestic energy production, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has released a new assessment of the undiscovered oil and natural gas resources available in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA). The new report builds upon the assessment completed in 1980 by using current exploration and development strategies and the economic analysis of developing these resources. Unlike the previous assessment, the lastest one considered resources situated in the offshore boundary between state and federal jurisdiction. As the assessment fact sheet notes: "Thus, in addition to Federal lands of NPRA, this assessment includes resources beneath State waters offshore from NPRA and beneath Native lands within the NPRA boundary." The assessment estimates (Table 1) that there is between 5.9 and 13.2 billion barrels of oil (BBO) of technically recoverable oil and between 39.1 and 83.2 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas on federal lands within NRPA. Additional information on the latest assessment is available at the USGS Energy Resources Program's Energy in Alaska website, which includes a link to the assessment fact sheet.

Table 1: U.S. Geological Survey estimates of volumes of technically recoverable oil and nonassociated gas in the NPRA study area.
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/NPRAtbl1_lg.gif
USGS Fact Sheet 045-02

The assessment methodology used is similar to that used in previous USGS assessments, whereby 24 petroleum plays -- described as "a volume of rock that contains similar geological parameters that determine petroleum potential -- are defined. The plays are then reviewed to estimate the number and size of petroleum accumulations. USGS restricted the size of accumulations to those larger than 50 million barrels of in-place oil or 250 billion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas. The size restriction was chosen because smaller accumulations are not typically economical on the Alaskan North Slope. Also taken into account in the assessment's numbers is a recovery factor to go from an in-place figure to a technically recoverable number. As Figure 1 shows, these factors were then used to determine a 95% and 5% probability, which is considered a reasonable minimum and maximum volume for technically recoverable resources. The assessment went one step further by including an economic analysis to provide figures of economically recoverable petroleum at different prices per barrel.

Figure 1: Schemic graph illustrating petroleum volumes and probablilities. Curves represent categories of oil assessment. How one reads the graphy is illustrated by the blue and orange lines projected to the curve for economically recoverable oil -- in this example, there is a 95% chance (probablity F95) of at least volume V1 of economically recoverable oil, and there is a 5% chance (probablity F05) of at least V2 of economically recoverable oil.
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/NPRA_F4.jpg
USGS Fact Sheet 045-02

As part of the assessment, the USGS looked not only at the resources within NPRA but also at how these figures compared to estimates for oil and gas in the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). As Table 2 shows, the technically recoverable resources available in NPRA and ANWR are similar in quantity. "The similarities between these estimates may be misleading, however, because of differences in accumulation sizes (the ANWR study are is estimated to contain more acculumations in larger size classes) and differences in assessment area (the NPRA study area is more than 12 times larger than the ANWR study area)." At market prices of less than $35 per barrel, the larger accumulations and proximity to existing infrastructure make the resources within ANWR more economically recoverable than those in NPRA. But these differences are moot when the market prices goes above $35 per barrel.

Table 2:Comparison of the 1998 ANWR and 2002 NPRA U.S. Geological Survey assessments. Volumes are techncally recoverable oil.
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/NPRAtbl3_lg.gif
USGS Fact Sheet 045-02

The new assessment estimates that there is between 5.9 and 13.2 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil within NPRA. It suggests that the majority of these petroleum plays will be in the northern section and in moderate sized accumulations. "Over a range of market prices between $22 and $30 per barrel, between 1.3 and 5.6 billion barrles of oil are estimated to be economically recoverable, on the basis of the mean estimate of technically recoverable oil volumes." As for natural gas, the assessment estimates that there is between 39.1 and 83.2 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered nonassociated natural gas resources within NPRA, but that the economic viability of these resources will depend on developing an infrastructure in the region to transport the natural gas to market.

The liberal enviro-nazis will have a hard time stopping development here. They can bitch, gripe, cry, piss, and moan all they want. Roughly 2000 acres of disturbed land out of 23 million acres is but a prick on the NPRA landscape. ;)

KV1M

06-20-2008, 10:30 AM

You have environazi fixation Stevie.
And that term is pretty lame as well as not descriptive of the group you are using against. National Socialism has little to do with the environmental movement.

And you clowns still get it all wrong. There is no shortage. There is no crisis.
There are just a bunch of large US banks gaming the futures markets to try and make back what they lost in the home loan scam they ran into the ground.

You do remember what a real shortage looks like don't you? I do.
Long lines, fill ups on specific days of the week depending on the last digit of your license plate, caps on the amount you could buy.
You know, shortage.

For all your claims of superiority you aren't too bright are you?

w2amr

06-20-2008, 10:44 AM

Yes, ANWR is a rallying cry for the lying, organized enviro-nazis in the lower-48. But, what the enviro-idiots don't know is the continued development of leases west of Prudhoe Bay on the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, NPRA -- a 23 million acre petroleum reserve in Alaska. I know, as I helped build the Alpine Field just north of Nuiqsut, Alaska, on it's eastern edge.

A BLM Update on NPRA:

Domestic energy production has gained wide-spread interest in both Congress and the Administration. Many people in Washington are calling on the nation to increase its investment in domestic energy resources to enhance national security. High energy prices in 2001, rolling blackouts in the West, the attacks of September 11th, and the collapse of industry giant Enron have kept energy issues in the limelight. Policy debate normally focuses on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), with relatively little attention paid to the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA). NPRA is a 23 million acre site on the northern coast of Alaska. In 1999 a federal lease sale was held in the northeastern region of the reserve and a number of exploration wells have been drilled that encountered oil and natural gas. The map below shows both NPRA and ANWR in relationship to Prudhoe Bay -- the central focus of petroleum exploration -- and the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System (TAPS).

Most Recent Action

On May 16th, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released its re-assessment of the undiscovered oil and natural gas resources within the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA). The last assessment was completed in 1980 and reported that the technically recoverable oil in the area on federal lands totaled between 0.3 and 5.4 billion barrels of oil (BBO). According to the new assessment, which includes an economic analysis of the technically recoverable resources, there is between 1.3 and 5.6 BBO that are considered economically recoverable at market prices between $22 and $30 per barrel. It also estimates that there is between 39.1 and 83.2 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas on federal lands within NPRA, but that the economic viability of these resources depends on transporting them to markets in the lower 48 states. According to the USGS fact sheet (045-02), the "increase in estimated oil resources is largely the result of the recognition of new plays based on oil accumulations recently discovered just east of NPRA." Included in the assessment is a comparison of the resources available in NPRA (using the 2002 assessment figures) and ANWR (using the 1998 assessment figures) that will be of great political interest as Congress begins to craft compromise energy legislation this summer. Additional details on the USGS assessment is available below. A Geotimes "web extra" on the assessment is available at http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/may02/WebExtra0517.html.

http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/NPRA_F1lg.gif
USGS Fact Sheet 045-02

Leasing Activities in NPRA

In 1923, President Harding set aside a 23 million acre petroleum reserve in Alaska to provide an emergency oil supply for the US Navy. The area, Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4, was placed under the management of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and renamed as the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska (NPRA) in 1976 by the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act. DOI sold several leases in the 1980s, but only two exploratory wells were drilled. Neither wells resulted in industry developing any petroleum resources. In May 1999, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) held another federal lease sale in the northeastern section of NPRA that resulted in 133 leases. Several exploratory wells have been drilled in these areas and many have encountered oil and gas resources. Additional wells are scheduled to be drilled in 2002. This northeastern section of NPRA is adjactant the Alpine oil field that was announced in 1996. The Alpine field is estimated to contain about 429 million barrels of recoverable oil.

Both BLM and the Minerals Management Service (MMS) are moving ahead with plans for future leasing activities in NPRA. BLM opened another NPRA lease sale in June 2002. MMS, which oversees oil and gas production from the outer continental shelf, announced in the September 19, 2001, Federal Register its consideration of three lease sales in the Beaufort Sea that is off the northeastern section of NPRA. Preleasing activities include a call for information and a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). These preparations would allow MMS to hold a lease sale in fall 2003.

USGS Assessment

In response to increasing interest in domestic energy production, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has released a new assessment of the undiscovered oil and natural gas resources available in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA). The new report builds upon the assessment completed in 1980 by using current exploration and development strategies and the economic analysis of developing these resources. Unlike the previous assessment, the lastest one considered resources situated in the offshore boundary between state and federal jurisdiction. As the assessment fact sheet notes: "Thus, in addition to Federal lands of NPRA, this assessment includes resources beneath State waters offshore from NPRA and beneath Native lands within the NPRA boundary." The assessment estimates (Table 1) that there is between 5.9 and 13.2 billion barrels of oil (BBO) of technically recoverable oil and between 39.1 and 83.2 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas on federal lands within NRPA. Additional information on the latest assessment is available at the USGS Energy Resources Program's Energy in Alaska website, which includes a link to the assessment fact sheet.

Table 1: U.S. Geological Survey estimates of volumes of technically recoverable oil and nonassociated gas in the NPRA study area.
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/NPRAtbl1_lg.gif
USGS Fact Sheet 045-02

The assessment methodology used is similar to that used in previous USGS assessments, whereby 24 petroleum plays -- described as "a volume of rock that contains similar geological parameters that determine petroleum potential -- are defined. The plays are then reviewed to estimate the number and size of petroleum accumulations. USGS restricted the size of accumulations to those larger than 50 million barrels of in-place oil or 250 billion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas. The size restriction was chosen because smaller accumulations are not typically economical on the Alaskan North Slope. Also taken into account in the assessment's numbers is a recovery factor to go from an in-place figure to a technically recoverable number. As Figure 1 shows, these factors were then used to determine a 95% and 5% probability, which is considered a reasonable minimum and maximum volume for technically recoverable resources. The assessment went one step further by including an economic analysis to provide figures of economically recoverable petroleum at different prices per barrel.

Figure 1: Schemic graph illustrating petroleum volumes and probablilities. Curves represent categories of oil assessment. How one reads the graphy is illustrated by the blue and orange lines projected to the curve for economically recoverable oil -- in this example, there is a 95% chance (probablity F95) of at least volume V1 of economically recoverable oil, and there is a 5% chance (probablity F05) of at least V2 of economically recoverable oil.
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/NPRA_F4.jpg
USGS Fact Sheet 045-02

As part of the assessment, the USGS looked not only at the resources within NPRA but also at how these figures compared to estimates for oil and gas in the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). As Table 2 shows, the technically recoverable resources available in NPRA and ANWR are similar in quantity. "The similarities between these estimates may be misleading, however, because of differences in accumulation sizes (the ANWR study are is estimated to contain more acculumations in larger size classes) and differences in assessment area (the NPRA study area is more than 12 times larger than the ANWR study area)." At market prices of less than $35 per barrel, the larger accumulations and proximity to existing infrastructure make the resources within ANWR more economically recoverable than those in NPRA. But these differences are moot when the market prices goes above $35 per barrel.

Table 2:Comparison of the 1998 ANWR and 2002 NPRA U.S. Geological Survey assessments. Volumes are techncally recoverable oil.
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/NPRAtbl3_lg.gif
USGS Fact Sheet 045-02

The new assessment estimates that there is between 5.9 and 13.2 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil within NPRA. It suggests that the majority of these petroleum plays will be in the northern section and in moderate sized accumulations. "Over a range of market prices between $22 and $30 per barrel, between 1.3 and 5.6 billion barrles of oil are estimated to be economically recoverable, on the basis of the mean estimate of technically recoverable oil volumes." As for natural gas, the assessment estimates that there is between 39.1 and 83.2 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered nonassociated natural gas resources within NPRA, but that the economic viability of these resources will depend on developing an infrastructure in the region to transport the natural gas to market.

The liberal enviro-nazis will have a hard time stopping development here. They can bitch, gripe, cry, piss, and moan all they want. Roughly 2000 acres of disturbed land out of 23 million acres is but a prick on the NPRA landscape. ;)
I must say , This is the widest pile of crap I have ever seen. :rolleyes:

n2ize

06-20-2008, 12:07 PM

Drill this.

N2RJ

06-20-2008, 01:21 PM

I heard that the NJ legislature is about to permanently ban off shore drilling, and the governor will sign it into law. Good for them.

I suppose so. I'd hate to see oil spills damaging the jersey shore.

But then again with the Gov't closing parks to save money, will it matter?

N2RJ

06-20-2008, 01:38 PM

You did notice the older generations, not you wet-behind-the-ear types, aren't as gullible and swayed by the complex global warming, now "climate change" bluster. They've been around, and know BS when they see and hear it.

Try again, young man...

So what are you today, a baby boomer or a Gen X'er? :D

N2RJ

06-20-2008, 01:40 PM

As opposed to Al Franken, liberal, from failed Air America?

I honestly haven't listened to Air America in ages. Are they still around?

Many "libs" don't really listen to Air America or any AM talk radio. Talk radio is really more of a conservative thing. Instead, they read websites, blogs and newspapers like the New York Times.

K3XR

06-20-2008, 01:44 PM

So much for ethanol to solve the fuel problem...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=195AF1EB-9C73-4146-9421-F9B81C84CDFD

N2RJ

06-20-2008, 01:54 PM

Yeah, I honestly think that using ethanol derived from corn was a dead end anyway...

NL7W

06-20-2008, 07:48 PM

So what are you today, a baby boomer or a Gen X'er? :D

I am a realist and an opportunist.

I enjoy high-paying jobs, no matter where they are. So, that makes me an opportunistic Gen-X'er with no worries about changing jobs and absolutely no company loyalty. It cuts both ways...

NL7W

06-20-2008, 07:56 PM