Offshore drilling for oil

[bluffmanxx]

Originally Posted by spaceboy761

The oil market was due to drop anyway and I don't think that Bush's announcement meant a thing. Nobody with more than 3 brain cells thinks that the new offshore drilling will produce a drop of oil in less than six years, and will then provide only small amounts. This whole offshore issue is really more political than economic anyway.

Actually I have heard that oil offshore in California could hit the market within 1 year if the ban were lifted. The 10 BILLION barrels of oil there would do more than Nancy Pelosi's suggestion that we tap 10% of the strategic oil reserve. That reserve totals 70 MILLION barrels of oil. 10% of that is 7 million barrels. um...am i the only one that thinks ms. pelosi needs a refresher course in math???

WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on President Bush to release oil from the government's emergency reserve to knock down gasoline prices she says "are helping push the economy toward recession."

Toss in the 10 BILLION barrels or so in ANWAR and other known offshore reserves in Florida that are "off limits" and IMO Pelosi comes off looking like a fool. 70 million barrels of oil will have an impact but 20+ BILLION barrels are off limits. To me the problem is pretty obvious.....

[TheMark]

Originally Posted by spaceboy761

The oil market was due to drop anyway and I don't think that Bush's announcement meant a thing. Nobody with more than 3 brain cells thinks that the new offshore drilling will produce a drop of oil in less than six years, and will then provide only small amounts. This whole offshore issue is really more political than economic anyway.

The Point nobody can see is simple. Even if it took 6 years to start bringing up the oil, the oil will flow. I seen a report (cant remember if it was fox or cnn regarding this same debate 7 years ago. The whole argument was the same, if we drill now we wont see any results for 6 years, so lets look at different options. If it would have been opened to drilling (lifted) the oil would be flowing and we would be looking at a different picture right now. We need to start drilling offshore, and Alaska now. and at the same time start working on short term, as medium term will be taken care of

[spaceboy761]

Whatever. Maybe when gas is $20/gallon people will get the message.

Right now, 71% of the US energy supply comes from foreign sources. The offshore drilling will lower that to 70% and not address the primary issue of refining capacity. Woo hoo.

[bluffmanxx]

Originally Posted by spaceboy761

Whatever. Maybe when gas is $20/gallon people will get the message.

Right now, 71% of the US energy supply comes from foreign sources. The offshore drilling will lower that to 70% and not address the primary issue of refining capacity. Woo hoo.

the U.S. Imports just over 9 million barrels of oil per day.

production from ANWAR alone has been estimated at .65 to 1.9 million barrels per day. so let's say that 2 million barrels a day can be produced from all domestic sources that are now off limits. that's 22% of what is now imported and one hell of a lot more than the 70 million barrels pelosi wants to remove from the strategic reserve.

as for the refining capacity, what difference does it make if we are refining domestic or imported oil?? even though more capacity is needed increasing domestic oil supply won't leave us with a glut of oil - we will simply import less.

the increase in domestic supply would almost certainly lower world oil prices to some extent and would lessen our dependence on imported oil.

[spaceboy761]

Pelosi is a moron for even suggesting that tapping the SPR would accomplish anything. She's not exactly known for her prowess on economic issues.

As per the offshore drilling, there are more cost-effective untapped reserves sitting in my portfolios of oil companies right now. They're untouched because the oil companies don't have the refining capacity to take on the additional work. Until the federal ban on the building of new refineries is lifted, this entire conservation is moot. We aren't even refining the oil we have now.

The major difference will be that the unrefined oil will be of domestic rather than foreign origin. That's nice, but it won't get more gasoline to the market any faster.

[spaceboy761]

The solution is to get the hell off of oil. We should be looking for ways to reduce its consumption, not pump more and suck it down faster. It will happen when the major oil companies decide it will happen (read: when they estimate it will be most profitable to them). That time has not come yet. So long as people continue to show the willingness to not even slow down their demand for oil at prices of $130/bbl, it won't.

[bluffmanxx]

i agree that we need to look for alternatives, but i don't think putting all our eggs in one basket is a good idea. build the refineries. drill offshore and in anwar. conserve. develop alternatives. doing all of these is the way to go IMO.

[spaceboy761]

I still firmly believe that any efforts of coservation or development of alternatives will be completely undermined so long as we are still finding new places to drill. At the very least, Americans should never consume any more oil than they are right now. Looking for new sources of oil should not be an issue.

[Moab]

If we were to start drilling tomorrow, it would take 10 years before the first drop of oil reaches the refinery's. Also not mentioned in any of the Bush proprosals are the rising cost of steel needed in manufacturing the rigs to drill at those great depths. Currently we only have one such operating rig.

It would be better served in america to explore other resources such as converting coal, oil-shale and oil-sands to gasoline. Nuclear, wind and solar electrical generation. More natural gas fired power-plants relieving more crude oil for consumer usage.

What is being done is the Oil Institute has led americans into a hysteria so they may profit from the drilling subsidies paid for from tax dollars by hard working class men and women, who need a real break in the overall rise not only in fuel cost but from the inflation caused by high energy prices. Wealthy americans don't feel the effects from inflation as do we the working class.

The United States does have what President Bush refers to as "vast" untapped oil reserves along the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. However, even if Congress lifts its own ban on the offshore drilling, which has been renewed annually for the past 27 years, it will take at least 10 years to find, drill and refine the oil. That won't relieve the current economic anxiety caused by $4 to $5 a gallon gasoline.
How Much Oil Do Offshore Reserves Have, How Much Will They Lower Gas Costs?

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates...
There are 17.8 billion barrels of recoverable oil offshore—about 60% of proven U.S. reserves.
This could increase crude oil production about 7% over the next twelve years.
How will this affect gas prices? According to the Energy Department...
A barrel of oil now costs $140.
Increased supply would cut that price to an estimated $138.60 to $139.60 a barrel.
No one knows how this would affect the price of a gallon of gas for consumers at the pump.
Dissent within Republican Party Over Drilling

"The only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress," President Bush said during a press conference. "Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court. Democratic leaders can show that they have finally heard the frustrations of the American people by matching the action I have taken today." (The Seattle Times, 7/15/08)
Bush also implied that Democrats are responsible for the current run-up in gasoline prices.
Republicans who favor renewed offshore drilling say that those who oppose it are...
"[acting] at the behest of radical environmental groups," said Rep. John E. Peterson (R-Pa.) (Baltimore Sun, 7/15/08)
"inventing excuses and obscuring the issue," said Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) (Baltimore Sun, 7/15/08)
But California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who supports developing alternative energy sources, said, "I know people are frustrated with the soaring price of gas, and I welcome the national debate on solutions to lower our energy costs, but in California we know offshore drilling is not the answer." (The Seattle Times, 7/15/08)

[bluffmanxx]

Nicci, I agree with most of what you have posted here. The second paragraph in particular, except that we need to explore other resources for the long term future AND expand drilling and production for the short term future.

As I mentioned earlier, additional oil off the California coast could hit the market in a year or so reducing imports and increasing world supply.

Also...Mav has told us many times that you are not exactly included in this group: "we the working class"

Originally Posted by Moab

If we were to start drilling tomorrow, it would take 10 years before the first drop of oil reaches the refinery's. Also not mentioned in any of the Bush proprosals are the rising cost of steel needed in manufacturing the rigs to drill at those great depths. Currently we only have one such operating rig.

It would be better served in america to explore other resources such as converting coal, oil-shale and oil-sands to gasoline. Nuclear, wind and solar electrical generation. More natural gas fired power-plants relieving more crude oil for consumer usage.

What is being done is the Oil Institute has led americans into a hysteria so they may profit from the drilling subsidies paid for from tax dollars by hard working class men and women, who need a real break in the overall rise not only in fuel cost but from the inflation caused by high energy prices. Wealthy americans don't feel the effects from inflation as do we the working class.