OT - Drilling for Oil

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

How much would you save if you restructured your life to not drive so many miles?

I teach, so I consider it an investment.

I also give readings in various places in the country, some of which pay.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_kil...e_electric_car

I watched that the other day. Pretty damning stuff (assuming even just 50% of it is true).

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_kil...e_electric_car

I thought it was John Rockefeller seeing the market for lighting oil disappearing with the advent of electricity, then stealing Henry Ford away from Thomas Edison and burning Edison's factory down?

And while they need to be taken with the same grain of salt anything regarding the man should be, the rumors of Tesla's converting a regular car to electric and driving it up to 90mph with no charging whatsoever have always intrigued me.

[astrosfan64]

We are no where close to running out of oil. Not even a little bit close.

That is such an untrue statement, I don't even know where to begin.

I worry about the environmental problems with combustion engines, but I'm not worried about oil reserves themselves.

There is a little known fact called oil shale/sands. The US and Canada are covered with this. This is also referred to as Tar sands. The reason, it isn't talked about is the cost involved with drilling it is pretty high.

What they do is drill a bunch a holes in an area. Esentially put a liner down and heat these sands up and melt the oil out of the sand. There is a better way to explain it, I'm sure.

Anyway, I work in the oil field on the "drilling/discovery side" and I'm very well versed in this stuff.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

There is a little known fact called oil shale/sands. The US and Canada are covered with this. This is also referred to as Tar sands. The reason, it isn't talked about is the cost involved with drilling it is pretty high.

What they do is drill a bunch a holes in an area. Esentially put a liner down and heat these sands up and melt the oil out of the sand.

Well that's it...

Step 1: I'm going to put a tarp and some heat lamps down in my backyard
Step 2: collect oil, convert to ca$h
Step 3: move family to Beverly Hills

[Toddzilla]

/waiting for Bubba to come tell us the Chinese are drilling fo oil off the coast of Cuba

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

We are no where close to running out of oil. Not even a little bit close.

You, sir, aside from the part about being an Astros fan, are a damn fool.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

We are no where close to running out of oil. Not even a little bit close.

That is such an untrue statement, I don't even know where to begin.

I worry about the environmental problems with combustion engines, but I'm not worried about oil reserves themselves.

There is a little known fact called oil shale/sands. The US and Canada are covered with this. This is also referred to as Tar sands. The reason, it isn't talked about is the cost involved with drilling it is pretty high.

What they do is drill a bunch a holes in an area. Esentially put a liner down and heat these sands up and melt the oil out of the sand. There is a better way to explain it, I'm sure.

Anyway, I work in the oil field on the "drilling/discovery side" and I'm very well versed in this stuff.

the Middle East is at maximum/peak output. i think i've heard 20 something billion barrels *per day*. unless those barrels are the size of Dxie cups, we're gonna run out of oil i would say in the next 50 years. tens of billions of barrels of oil per day. we've been pumping these out for many decaded now. it's called mathematics. tens of billions for multiple decades - how much oil do you think we have in the world? just like there will come a point where we've mined all the gold in the world, all the other resources - oil will soon one day be gone.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

We are no where close to running out of oil. Not even a little bit close.

That is such an untrue statement, I don't even know where to begin.

I worry about the environmental problems with combustion engines, but I'm not worried about oil reserves themselves.

There is a little known fact called oil shale/sands. The US and Canada are covered with this. This is also referred to as Tar sands. The reason, it isn't talked about is the cost involved with drilling it is pretty high.

The oil shale deposits are not little known; they're counted on as part of our projection numbers for how long the party will last. I won't hold the fact that you work for the oil industry against you, but I will point out that you probably need to look at the numbers a little more closely before declaring that we've got plenty of oil -- every published statistic points to the fact that we're running out, and that within the century the party will be over (and probably in half that time).

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yeah, if you add ANWR and offshore, even the most conservative estimates amount to getting enough to not need Persian Gulf oil for between 10 and 20 years. Some people have even estimated a supply in the 50 year span when compared to middle east import.

If we don't drill (esp off coast), the Chinese, Venezuelan, Cuban and others will just take it anyway (with a much more damaging footprint). Of course, we would still need more refinaries (which is another story alltogether). In the end, we should do something internally to deal with this. It's just silly not to (which means, of course, that we won't).

If you listen to Bush and Fox News, you'd think that there was a giant bubble over the coast of the US that prevents oil companies from even entering US waters, much less drilling there.

In fact, US oil companies already have leases to drill into areas that access about 80% of the known US oil reserves off of the US continental shelf. But they've only gotten around to drilling in about 1/4th of those already leased areas.

The issue here isn't that the government is blocking their access to these oil resources; rather, it is that the oil companies are too busy counting their profits under the status quo than to invest in drilling their existing leases.

Bush just gave a speech a few minutes ago that noted that if you opened the entire OCS to drilling, you could optimistically get 18 billion barrels of oil. Total. That is less than 3 years worth of oil as currently consumed by the US -- currently 7.5 billion barrels. Spread out over the time it would take to extract it, you're probably only looking at a 3-6% increase in the total US oil output.

Sorry, folks. The offshore drilling debate is, like McCain's gas tax holiday, nothing but a distraction from the real problem.

[nilodor]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

The oil shale deposits are not little known; they're counted on as part of our projection numbers for how long the party will last. I won't hold the fact that you work for the oil industry against you, but I will point out that you probably need to look at the numbers a little more closely before declaring that we've got plenty of oil -- every published statistic points to the fact that we're running out, and that within the century the party will be over (and probably in half that time).

I don't think they have counted all of the tar sands oil into the projections, even now we haven't even discovered the extent of how far the Athabasca sands extends into Saskatchewan. 10 years ago people though it ended at the border. What I would say we are running out of is easy to recover deposits. The Athabasca deposit can be reached by surface mining in Alberta but as it goes over into Saskatchewan that may not be possible. There are also plenty of other northern deposits that haven't had their extent proven yet, but there are considerable amounts there, again, how easy are they going to be to get.

That being said there is no doubt that we should be responsible enough to curb our dependence on oil use and products.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by nilodor

I don't think they have counted all of the tar sands oil into the projections, even now we haven't even discovered the extent of how far the Athabasca sands extends into Saskatchewan. 10 years ago people though it ended at the border. What I would say we are running out of is easy to recover deposits. The Athabasca deposit can be reached by surface mining in Alberta but as it goes over into Saskatchewan that may not be possible. There are also plenty of other northern deposits that haven't had their extent proven yet, but there are considerable amounts there, again, how easy are they going to be to get.

That being said there is no doubt that we should be responsible enough to curb our dependence on oil use and products.

Some of the information I've seen takes into account predicted finds (i.e. deposits we haven't located but are in likely locations, etc.), but even looking at the large end of those numbers doesn't solve the problem. Certainly many of these deposits are in difficult-to-recover locations. It may be a moot point: if we haven't developed an alternative energy solution by the time supply fades, everything that possibly can be drilled will be drilled to stave off disaster.

[NoMyths]

dola...

I'd also say that for me the fact the president is pressing for expanded drilling is an indicator of the decline, rather than a sign that we have plenty of oil.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

dola...

I'd also say that for me the fact the president is pressing for expanded drilling is an indicator of the decline, rather than a sign that we have plenty of oil.

The President is pressing for expanded drilling because people are getting pretty upset at high gas prices. Pressing for expanded drilling is probably a good way to bring votes to the Republican party since they can promise lower gas prices. Democrats have to face the possibility of really upsetting voters if they fight it. Then again, Democrats will have to answer to their Green friends if the don't fight it. Smart strategy for the Red side.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by BrianD

The President is pressing for expanded drilling because people are getting pretty upset at high gas prices.

Right. High gas prices are an indicator of the decline as well. It's a political strategy as well, but I also see it as a legitimate stage in the process of doing what will eventually need to be done.

[jonesz]

Originally Posted by nilodor

I don't think they have counted all of the tar sands oil into the projections, even now we haven't even discovered the extent of how far the Athabasca sands extends into Saskatchewan. 10 years ago people though it ended at the border. What I would say we are running out of is easy to recover deposits. The Athabasca deposit can be reached by surface mining in Alberta but as it goes over into Saskatchewan that may not be possible. There are also plenty of other northern deposits that haven't had their extent proven yet, but there are considerable amounts there, again, how easy are they going to be to get.

That being said there is no doubt that we should be responsible enough to curb our dependence on oil use and products.

For a oilsands stock play check out BQI. They have the largest contiguous land holding in the Saskatchewan area nilodor is talking about. They have a confirmed 10B barrels of oil in one teeny tiny area of it. The potential is enormous with this one. It is expensive to get out, but is economical with the price north of $50 per barrell. Suncor is a company producing out of oilsands right now and doing very well by it. Current estimates of "oil left" do not take into account these as new discoveries are happening all of the time. They just found 2 HUGE deposits in the ocean off of Brazil for example.

Folks, we've been "running out of oil" since the early 1900s. You can find old newspaper articles going back to around 1930 mentioning a phenomena that's recently gotten a catchy name in "peak oil". At that time 90+% of our oil came from Pennsylvania. We found alternative sources then and we will find them again. Whether it's offshore, in the oil sands, or in the Bakken area here in the US. It is absolutely in our best interests to come up with alternative sources, but we will not be "running out of oil" anytime soon. T

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Well that's it...

Step 1: I'm going to put a tarp and some heat lamps down in my backyard
Step 2: collect oil, convert to ca$h
Step 3: move family to Beverly Hills

LOL

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by jonesz

For a oilsands stock play check out BQI. They have the largest contiguous land holding in the Saskatchewan area nilodor is talking about. They have a confirmed 10B barrels of oil in one teeny tiny area of it. The potential is enormous with this one. It is expensive to get out, but is economical with the price north of $50 per barrell. Suncor is a company producing out of oilsands right now and doing very well by it. Current estimates of "oil left" do not take into account these as new discoveries are happening all of the time. They just found 2 HUGE deposits in the ocean off of Brazil for example.

Folks, we've been "running out of oil" since the early 1900s. You can find old newspaper articles going back to around 1930 mentioning a phenomena that's recently gotten a catchy name in "peak oil". At that time 90+% of our oil came from Pennsylvania. We found alternative sources then and we will find them again. Whether it's offshore, in the oil sands, or in the Bakken area here in the US. It is absolutely in our best interests to come up with alternative sources, but we will not be "running out of oil" anytime soon. T

We do a ton of work with Suncor in that very oil sands project. Well I should say our Canadian division does. They do a ton of "batch drilling" up there.

I mean yes of course we are running out of oil, but the how fast part is what people are grossly overstating.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by jonesz

For a oilsands stock play check out BQI. They have the largest contiguous land holding in the Saskatchewan area nilodor is talking about. They have a confirmed 10B barrels of oil in one teeny tiny area of it. The potential is enormous with this one. It is expensive to get out, but is economical with the price north of $50 per barrell. Suncor is a company producing out of oilsands right now and doing very well by it. Current estimates of "oil left" do not take into account these as new discoveries are happening all of the time. They just found 2 HUGE deposits in the ocean off of Brazil for example.

Folks, we've been "running out of oil" since the early 1900s. You can find old newspaper articles going back to around 1930 mentioning a phenomena that's recently gotten a catchy name in "peak oil". At that time 90+% of our oil came from Pennsylvania. We found alternative sources then and we will find them again. Whether it's offshore, in the oil sands, or in the Bakken area here in the US. It is absolutely in our best interests to come up with alternative sources, but we will not be "running out of oil" anytime soon. T

You seem to have an interest in the subject. If we will not be running out of oil anytime soon, when do you project that we will?

[CamEdwards]

I truly don't know enough about the current state of world oil reserves, refining capacity, production, etc. to offer an even semi-informed opinion. I'm enjoying this thread, and ran across something from Victor Davis Hanson today that seems fitting.

There is something pathetic about Americans begging the House of Saud to produce another 300,000-500,000 barrels of oil per day, while in mindless fashion repeating the mantra, “We can’t drill our way out of this problem” — as if anyone suggested absolute oil independence was the goal rather than more supply to deflate tight conditions that encourage speculation. Americans, who invented the oil industry, are beginning to resemble H.G. Wells’ Eloi in our refined paralysis.

Exploration and oil production are an issue that is absolutely explosive for Democrats, given their perennial resistance to ANWR, coastal and deep ocean drilling, tar sands, shale, liquid coal, and nuclear. And the irony is that their opposition to drilling — dismissing each potential find or field with the reductionist “it would be only 500,000 barrels,” “a mere million barrels,” or “just a few cents off a gallon of gas” — is classically illiberal to the point of either callousness or abject madness.

Consider:

(1) Social Justice: The poorer, inordinately in far cheaper 2nd-hand used gas guzzlers, who have less access to pricey new hybrids and imported small cars, are hurt the most, especially those in rural communities without mass transit.

(2) The Environment: Given the demands of two billion users in China and India, the world is going to go after oil, whether we like it or not. U.S. oil companies and American environmental legislation are the most ecologically friendly in the world. Each time we refuse to pump a barrel of oil, someone else in this fungible market will — and with far less concern for the health of planet Earth. Again, there is something appalling in de facto saying to others — “Drill off your coasts and in your fragile deserts and beside your lakes so I can fuel my Lexus SUV and Volvo — and cherish the comforting thought I would never do that in my ANWR.”

(3) National Security: At $140 a barrel of oil we have little influence in warning the world about Iranian nukes, or Middle-East money leaking to Islamic terrorists, or Saudi-funded madrassas, or the cynicism of Hugo Chavez or Russian strong-arm tactics toward Europe; at less than $50 the world begins to appear far less dangerous and far more rational.

(4) Financial Sanity: U.S. exporters are doing brilliantly, with help from a weak dollar, but our efforts to produce and sell abroad are increasingly all for naught, given the enormous cost of imported oil. Each time we invest American know-how and expertise in selling abroad a skip-loader or bushel of wheat or new software program that once explained our national wealth, we simply buy another barrel of foreign oil at $140 that often costs the far-less-adept less than $5 to pump. In contrast, the tens of billions we would save by even shaving 3 to 4 million barrels per day from our imported appetites would radically redefine both our trade balances and the dollar.

(5) Alternate Fuels/New Energies: No one is talking about more the return of Hummers and Escalades or a mythical $2 a gallon gas. Rather, with demand down, and the public aware that oil is finite and will remain tight, drilling provides a needed window to transition us to electrical plug-ins, biofuels, fuel cells, etc. without endangering our national security — or going broke or seeing a nuke go off in the Middle East.

(6) Food versus Fuel: I don’t understand in moral terms how worrying about the terrain in 2,000 acres in a multimillion-acre Alaska trumps diverting one-fifth to one-fourth of our corn acreage away from animal and human foods to produce transportation fuel. People worldwide are in dire straits, given rising food prices, while we, in anti-humanistic fashion, complain about the view from Santa Barbara or a herd on the tundra.

Our current stasis reminds me of Jack Hawkins last words in The Bridge Over the River Kwai — “Madness! Madness!”

To me, the part I most agree with is the notion that expanded drilling won't solve the problem, but it will buy us additional time as well as expanding our economy. Add in the ecological benefits (U.S. drilling as opposed to our less "enlightened" countries doing the drilling) and what VDH says sounds pretty reasonable.

[Arles]

From a NCPA report:

* In May 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that the world's total endowment of oil amounted to 60 billion barrels.
* In 1950, geologists estimated the world's total oil endowment at around 600 billion barrels.
* From 1970 through 1990, their estimates increased to between 1,500 and 2,000 billion barrels.
* In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment.

By the year 2000, a total of 900 billion barrels of oil had been produced. Total world oil production in 2000 was 25 billion barrels. If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world's oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056.

I think it's extremely short-sited to think we will be out of oil before mainstream alternatives come to fruition. So, in the meantime, why not drill where we can? I fully expect to have oil be a non-issue by 2050, so I don't see the big deal about drilling now to make the transition smoother. To me, it's like people in the early 1900s worrying they may not have enough horses to support the population in 1950, so they limit the amount of horses available in the early 1900s.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Arles

By the year 2000, a total of 900 billion barrels of oil had been produced. Total world oil production in 2000 was 25 billion barrels. If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world's oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056.

It's probably worth pointing out that Chinese oil consumption is predicted to continue increasing at a rate between 5.5 - 7.5% through 2012, while India is also around a 5.5% growth rate.

It's probably also worth pointing out that we will begin experiencing effects from oil scarcity far in advance of its exhaustion, whether 2056 is an accurate date or not.

And finally, it may be worth pointing out that as recently as 1999 oil was as low as $8 per barrel, a far cry from today's $140 per barrel prices. And in only nine years.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

the Middle East is at maximum/peak output. i think i've heard 20 something billion barrels *per day*. unless those barrels are the size of Dxie cups, we're gonna run out of oil i would say in the next 50 years. tens of billions of barrels of oil per day. we've been pumping these out for many decaded now. it's called mathematics. tens of billions for multiple decades - how much oil do you think we have in the world? just like there will come a point where we've mined all the gold in the world, all the other resources - oil will soon one day be gone.

Well, you heard pretty fantastically wrong. The world extracts about 25bb per year, not day. And we have proven reserves well over 2 trillion left. A lot of this is harder to get and more expensive to pump out, but most of the break-even points come somewhere between $50-$90 per barrel, and I think we're starting to see a market that will sustain the lower end for a while. We've been discovering more reserves than we've pumped out without fail for the past century. The amount in the oil shale of Colorado, or beneath the tundra in Athabasca and Siberia, or off the coasts (such as Petrobras' recent discoveries) dwarf the amount in the Middle East. It's just harder and more expensive to extract. (There is the argument out there, led by Sheppard out of Houston, that Arabian government are overstating their reserves to qualify for higher quotas under OPEC and could start collapsing soon, but that doesn't change the rest of the argument.)

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Right. High gas prices are an indicator of the decline as well. It's a political strategy as well, but I also see it as a legitimate stage in the process of doing what will eventually need to be done.

High gas prices are an indicator of decline? So we suddenly discover billions of barrels every winter and lose it every summer? Same fallacy as saying oil was $8 a barrel and has gone up 20 fold in 10 years. Not only is it choosing an artificial baseline (I could say oil was at $100 and then declined to $8 from 1990 to 1999) but it's ignoring all the other market forces.

Transitioning to other fuels is important, and reducing air pollution is obviously a good thing, but the Hubberts Peak Oil arguments are spectacularly wrong. We're not running out of oil anytime this century, and barring a luddite government that nevers allows innovation, we'll have transitioned on to other fuels long before actual shortages occur due to it running out. (Shortages for other reasons, like lack of refining capacity or transportation issues, are infinitely more likely.)

[NoMyths]

I do suppose this might help: Deals with Iraq are set to bring oil giants back

[jonesz]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

It's probably worth pointing out that Chinese oil consumption is predicted to continue increasing at a rate between 5.5 - 7.5% through 2012, while India is also around a 5.5% growth rate.

IMO these projections are mainly due to/include subsidies that China et.al. give towards gas prices that shields their consumers from the real current price of oil. This pretty much allows anyone to be able to afford gas, even with an average wage of only around $1920 per year. China, for one, will probably start phasing out the subsidies, post Olympics of course, which should slow demand growth significantly.

It's probably also worth pointing out that we will begin experiencing effects from oil scarcity far in advance of its exhaustion, whether 2056 is an accurate date or not.

Absolutely true.

And finally, it may be worth pointing out that as recently as 1999 oil was as low as $8 per barrel, a far cry from today's $140 per barrel prices. And in only nine years.

True again. But you bring up a very interesting point. The reason we are in the predicament we are in now is absolutely because oil was $8 per barrel. Like any other business, the more economical/profitable it is, the more people/companies looking to enter will be. At $8 it made absolutely no sense for companies to invest in expanding production/exploration. So, for the last 10 years or so, business has ignored/neglected this. Now that oil is $140 it becomes a WHOLE LOT more attractive for companies to invest. Also, other technologies/sources also suddenly become very attractive where they made absolutely no sense at $8 or even $20 a barrel (i.e oil sands). That's why you are seeing people essentialy opening drilling rigs in their back yard.

Oil price is cyclical and as production is expanded/new sources brought on line the price will drop again. We'll probably never see $8, or even $20 a barrel again, but $60 or $80 is not out of the question. It will take some time, but the price will come down again.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I truly don't know enough about the current state of world oil reserves, refining capacity, production, etc. to offer an even semi-informed opinion. I'm enjoying this thread, and ran across something from Victor Davis Hanson today that seems fitting.

Eurgh....

(1) Social Justice: The poorer, inordinately in far cheaper 2nd-hand used gas guzzlers, who have less access to pricey new hybrids and imported small cars, are hurt the most, especially those in rural communities without mass transit.

Toyota Corollas and Honda Civics aren't exactly expensive, and are available used. GM and Ford both make smaller cars that get good gas mileage and are available used and both have made a commitment to producing more of these high-MPG cars.

(2) The Environment: Given the demands of two billion users in China and India, the world is going to go after oil, whether we like it or not. U.S. oil companies and American environmental legislation are the most ecologically friendly in the world. Each time we refuse to pump a barrel of oil, someone else in this fungible market will — and with far less concern for the health of planet Earth. Again, there is something appalling in de facto saying to others — “Drill off your coasts and in your fragile deserts and beside your lakes so I can fuel my Lexus SUV and Volvo — and cherish the comforting thought I would never do that in my ANWR.”

The fact that countries are going to drill for oil anyways isn't necessarily an argument for drilling in ANWR. If we don't drill in ANWR it isn't as if China is going to drill in ANWR. Furthermore, China's FDA-type regulations, like oil drilling regulations, aren't as strict as ours. Should we ditch the FDA in response?

(3) National Security: At $140 a barrel of oil we have little influence in warning the world about Iranian nukes, or Middle-East money leaking to Islamic terrorists, or Saudi-funded madrassas, or the cynicism of Hugo Chavez or Russian strong-arm tactics toward Europe; at less than $50 the world begins to appear far less dangerous and far more rational.

I don't see how this argument is supported. "Influence" is a result of a wide array of factors, not just price. If the argument is that oil producers have major consumers "over a barrel", then that's one thing, but I'd point out that they had this same leverage (and used it) in 1973, and oil wasn't $140/barrel then.

(4) Financial Sanity: U.S. exporters are doing brilliantly, with help from a weak dollar, but our efforts to produce and sell abroad are increasingly all for naught, given the enormous cost of imported oil. Each time we invest American know-how and expertise in selling abroad a skip-loader or bushel of wheat or new software program that once explained our national wealth, we simply buy another barrel of foreign oil at $140 that often costs the far-less-adept less than $5 to pump. In contrast, the tens of billions we would save by even shaving 3 to 4 million barrels per day from our imported appetites would radically redefine both our trade balances and the dollar.

Everyone has to pay shipping costs. Companies importing to the U.S. suffer the same problems. The last sentence is particularly egregious. The dollar's value is far more affected by our debt load and economic strength than merely the price of oil. The price of oil is one of the results of a weak dollar. You don't pump more oil to increase the value of the dollar.

(5) Alternate Fuels/New Energies: No one is talking about more the return of Hummers and Escalades or a mythical $2 a gallon gas. Rather, with demand down, and the public aware that oil is finite and will remain tight, drilling provides a needed window to transition us to electrical plug-ins, biofuels, fuel cells, etc. without endangering our national security — or going broke or seeing a nuke go off in the Middle East.

As others have pointed out, it's a very, very small window, especially in the face of our continued high demand. If you think that ANWR is irreplaceable and that drilling for oil in it will cause irrevocable harm, this might not be a price worth paying.

(6) Food versus Fuel: I don’t understand in moral terms how worrying about the terrain in 2,000 acres in a multimillion-acre Alaska trumps diverting one-fifth to one-fourth of our corn acreage away from animal and human foods to produce transportation fuel. People worldwide are in dire straits, given rising food prices, while we, in anti-humanistic fashion, complain about the view from Santa Barbara or a herd on the tundra.

So don't divert corn. Use switchgrass, which produces more energy per pound anyway. Besides, even if you grow more corn and decide to send it around the world, you still have to pay the higher shipping costs. Maybe that money's better spent improving the agricultural practices in places with food shortages?

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

To me, the part I most agree with is the notion that expanded drilling won't solve the problem, but it will buy us additional time as well as expanding our economy. Add in the ecological benefits (U.S. drilling as opposed to our less "enlightened" countries doing the drilling) and what VDH says sounds pretty reasonable.

To me, it reads more like a rationalization than a justification. The benefits are very overstated and the problems are underplayed.

[jonesz]

IMO these projections are mainly due to/include subsidies that China et.al. give towards gas prices that shields their consumers from the real current price of oil. This pretty much allows anyone to be able to afford gas, even with an average wage of only around $1920 per year. China, for one, will probably start phasing out the subsidies, post Olympics of course, which should slow demand growth significantly.

I guess China didn't want to wait until after the Olympics afterall...

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by jonesz

I guess China didn't want to wait until after the Olympics afterall...

You have any link to the hard numbers on this? All the US press is obsessed with its affect on oil futures*, but give hazy numbers on the actual rise in subsidies (somewhere between 4.8 and 18% depending on the type) and have no information on how much it is still subsidized.

*By my estimation, these should be even lower, but they're using irrational fears of a Nigerian strike to keep them high. The Delta rebel groups and criminal gangs only make money if the oil companies keep producing, so while it appears MEND has no control over them, they'll lay low if its gets too heavy.

[NoMyths]

Wall Street Journal: Oil's Rapid Rise Stirs Talk of $200 a Barrel This Year

Full Text:
By NEIL KING JR.
July 7, 2008; Page A6

Oil's historic ascent from $100 to nearly $150 a barrel in just six months is lending weight to a far grimmer prediction: Crude could reach $200 a barrel by the end of the year.

Oil at that price would wreak deeper havoc on the world's airlines and automobile industries.

In the U.S., $200 crude would push the price of gasoline to well over $6 a gallon, causing commuters to alter their driving habits more sharply than they have already, while putting extreme strains on large sectors of the U.S. economy. In Europe, it would stir more political unrest and increase the clamor to cut the continent's stiff petrol taxes. In Asia, governments would be under pressure to cut fuel subsidies and risk a popular backlash.

U.S. benchmark crude prices leapt 3.6% last week, closing before the Independence Day holiday at a record $145.29 a barrel. Roughly halfway through the year, oil prices have soared 50% since Jan. 1 and have doubled since the same time last year. (See related article.)

Few oil watchers are now ready to bet that oil will hit $200 a barrel by New Year's Eve. But nearly all are wary of predicting how and when oil's upward stampede will be reversed.

What makes the market so unpredictable, analysts say, is that prices are being pushed by such a wide array of factors, while no single force has emerged with the power to throw them in reverse.

"Crude is going up," said Dave Pursell, an oil analyst at Tudor Pickering in Houston, "because there is nothing strong enough yet to push it down."

In Washington, deepening fears that oil prices will shoot still higher have stoked talk in Congress and within the Bush administration of using one of the last remaining cudgels to try to reverse the price rise: a sharp and sustained release of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Those discussions remain preliminary, though, while most senior administration officials remain opposed to such a move, because the oil stored in salt mines is meant for release in genuine supply emergencies.

The list of forces shoving prices upward is long: a weak dollar driving hot money into commodities; jitters over a possible military conflict with Iran; soaring costs and chronic project delays in the world's oil patch; concerns over scarce supplies and long-term production declines; and continued robust demand growth in much of the developing world.

Oil ministers and top petroleum executives have added to the alarm. Paolo Scaroni, head of Italy's biggest oil-and-gas company, Eni SpA, told an Italian newspaper last week that he could see prices hitting $200 a barrel this year.Chakib Khelil, president of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, predicts that crude could go as high as $170 a barrel this summer.

Oil's seemingly unstoppable rise has also scared off some of the very financial players that would otherwise temper the market. Oil producers who would normally lock in high prices by hedging on the futures market have now backed off, assuming that prices will continue to rise.

That has fueled the upward momentum as financial players continue to bid up oil on the futures market, said Larry Goldstein, an economist at the Energy Policy Research Foundation. "The problem is that the natural hedgers, the producers themselves, are shying away, while the buyers get bolder," Mr. Goldstein said.

Geopolitics, particularly the fear of a potential Israeli or U.S. attack against Iran, have also re-emerged as a significant factor in the market. Some investment houses were saying last week that it was more likely than not that a war with Iran would break out this fall.

With so many forces arguing for higher prices, the big question is: What would spook the market enough to cause prices to fall?

So far, falling gasoline use in the U.S. has done nothing to put a damper on prices, largely because growing demand elsewhere in the world has managed to keep global supplies tight.

"The reality of it is, swings in U.S. consumption just don't matter that much anymore," said Jeffrey Rubin, chief economist at CIBC World Markets, who is predicting that oil will average $200 a barrel in 2010.

The one shift in demand that would have a serious price impact would be any sign of diminished thirst for fuel in China. Speculation has run high for months that Chinese demand may have surged artificially in advance of the Beijing Olympics as the country turned to oil over coal for power generation to ease pollution. It is also unclear whether China stockpiled gasoline and diesel to avoid any shortages.

"But if consumption roars on even after the Olympics, then the upside pressure on prices will remain pretty strong," said Stephen Brown, an energy economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

Another force that could shove prices down in a hurry would be signs of a significant buildup in oil inventories in the U.S. But even with oil use down in the U.S., crude stockpiles remain unusually low. The U.S. now has just over 19 days of total commercial supplies, compared with 23 days worth at the same time last year.

Alarmed over the economic impact of soaring oil prices, Saudi Arabia tried last month to hammer the market back down by boosting its monthly output and promising a dramatic long-range increase in its production capacity. But neither announcement by the world's largest oil producer had any perceptible affect, further underscoring how weak the market's traditional levers now are.

Some advocates are clamoring for the Bush administration to take a more dramatic step and release millions of barrels from the U.S. strategic reserves, which contain around 706 million barrels. The House of Representatives is weighing legislation to force a release from the reserves, while support for such a move also appears to be building in the Senate.

The administration strongly opposes using the reserve for market interventions.

A release of two million barrels a day for long as a month, analysts say, could make a sharp impact on prices, in part because the barrels would be sold at auction, thus allowing buyers to set the oil's value. The U.S. consumes a little more than 20 million barrels a day.

"We have exhausted all other short-term policy options," said Mr. Goldstein, a veteran of the Washington energy establishment who is among those pushing aggressively for a significant release from the reserves. He argues that the U.S. Energy Department should step in to tamp down oil prices and thus prevent further damage to the U.S. economy.

But others worry that even that step could backfire. For one, sky-high prices have made refiners all the more reluctant to build up oil stocks.

"And even if you release 20 or 30 million barrels, people are still going to be worried about Iran or something else," said Michael Lynch, a Massachusetts-based oil analyst who is among the many who believe that oil prices are already far too high.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by nilodor

Then the question is where do you get hydrogen? I'm pretty certain the main way to mass produce it, is still from stripping it from natural gas, which is a highly inefficient process (eg you're putting way more energy into it then you are saving on the other end). Maybe that's why hydrogen is seemingly the fuel of the future, because there is an abundance of natural gas and oil companies are already in control of most of the conventional reserves, so it would be more like shifting gears for them instead of entering into a whole new enterprize.

This is where my solution to Global Warming comes in. Nuclear Power. My understanding is that Hydrogen requires more energy to produce than other options. Same thing goes for Ethanol. Nuclear power makes these options more reasonable, and without the carbon footprint of other power plants.

[BishopMVP]

I will sell oil futures at $200/barrel to anyone willing to buy them, redeemable on January 1st, 2009. Unless we set a date of January 7 to attack Iran, prices will not be that high (and any attack on Iran will happen in late August if at all imo). Sensationalist reporting at its best.

[jonesz]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I will sell oil futures at $200/barrel to anyone willing to buy them, redeemable on January 1st, 2009. Unless we set a date of January 7 to attack Iran, prices will not be that high (and any attack on Iran will happen in late August if at all imo). Sensationalist reporting at its best.

I'm with you..I'll sell them for $175.. This article, IMO, shows we've now reached the point where everyone piles on and a feeding frenzy has begun. It's suddenly fashionable to predict sensationaistic gas prices. Every guy wants to try and prove they are smarter than the next guy.

Could someone knowledgeable please explain to me how this run-up in oil prices makes sense. I get the demand growth with China and India, but did suddenly the demand double in those places over the last year? It just doesn't make sense to me and in my experience, when something doesn't make sense it's usually not economically sustainable.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I will sell oil futures at $200/barrel to anyone willing to buy them, redeemable on January 1st, 2009. Unless we set a date of January 7 to attack Iran, prices will not be that high (and any attack on Iran will happen in late August if at all imo). Sensationalist reporting at its best.

Agreed. This seems to be a bubble that's going to burst in a big way at some point. The growth is way too fast. Something's got to give.

[NoMyths]

BishopMVP, jonez, and Mizzou:
I'll take the high road and point out that the same was said about $144/barrel oil -- which is a figure Osama bin Laden was targeting as a way to destabilize the Western economy. I might further point out that oil prices have risen 265% in the last four years from $40/barrel to $146/barrel, and that the president of OPEC has predicted that prices could rise to $170 this summer.

I can't say that the Wall Street Journal is noted for sensationalist reporting (considering the information its primary audience demands) but it's important to remember that sensationalist reporting relies on emotion, not facts, to make its argument and that this article is based on facts such as this one:

This chart should worry you more than it appears to.

jonez, you've asked how this run-up could make sense. There are a number of factors cited as probable reasons ranging from tensions in the Middle East to speculators to Katrina's aftermath. The primary reason is that we are running out of oil. It is a non-renewable resource and we are somewhere around the peak of production--and probably past it, judging from a number of facts--before global supplies begin dwindling. Humans are consuming more oil at a faster rate than at any time in history, and as the global population swells from 6 billion to an estimated 9.2 billion by 2075 global demand will drive supply down and prices even higher. Wikipedia has a useful introduction to the subject..

[NoMyths]

dola...

I'd also very much recommend watching this lecture, which is available in its entirety on YouTube:



Arithmetic, Population, and Energy
Dr. Albert A. Bartlett
Professor Emeritus
Department of Physics
University of Colorado at Boulder

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

The primary reason is that we are running out of oil.

I don't complete buy that at this point. Either way, a couple of points still remain.

1. This isn't a new situation that suddenly occurred in the past year or two. The supply of oil has been a concern for some time. Also, the drastic increase in price doesn't match up when demand is factored into the equation. There's simply not a level of demand increase that should create this sort of price increase.

2. There's still a vast amount of oil available even here in the U.S. As someone mentioned before, there's varying degrees of difficulty to get to that oil, but it's certainly available. They need to start moving on those energy resources so they're available in the future and provide a bridge over to the new energy sources that future transportation will use.

Either way, I'm actually glad that this has occurred. While it's a bit painful on the pocketbook now, it will force both citizens and politicians to get off their ass and actually address the problem in a meaningful way rather than continue to say it's a problem that we won't have for some time.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

The primary reason is that we are running out of oil. It is a non-renewable resource and we are somewhere around the peak of production--and probably past it, judging from a number of facts--before global supplies begin dwindling.[/url].

We've been really, really slow to realize this for whatever reason. This isn't like a housing bubble or tech bubble. There might be slight corrections here and there as we hit certain tresholds and demand decreases, but we'll see $300/oil before we ever see $50 oil again.

There's oil out there, but it's taking more and more energy and expense to acquire it, and it's just not the solution to rising prises.

It's really an opportunity if we saw it for what it is, one of the biggest and most important challenges to modern civilization.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

1. This isn't a new situation that suddenly occurred in the past year or two. The supply of oil has been a concern for some time.

Correct. Which is why it shouldn't be such a surprise that enough time has gone by since we began to become concerned that we're at a point of significantly greater concern.

Also, the drastic increase in price doesn't match up when demand is factored into the equation. There's simply not a level of demand increase that should create this sort of price increase.

Actually, there is a level of demand increase that should create the price increase: in just my lifetime, the global population has grown over 63%, from around 4 billion to 6.7 billion today. Further, U.S. energy consumption alone has grown over 35% in the same time period. My sense is that your statement comes out of unfamiliarity with the actual numbers.

2. There's still a vast amount of oil available even here in the U.S. As someone mentioned before, there's varying degrees of difficulty to get to that oil, but it's certainly available. They need to start moving on those energy resources so they're available in the future and provide a bridge over to the new energy sources that future transportation will use.

This is another statement which comes out of unfamiliarity with the numbers. Do the math yourself: look up the hard-number estimates for how much oil is being produced, how much oil is in reserves, and the rate of current and estimated consumption. I'd suggest numbers from several sources, including the petroleum companies and research institutes. Crunching the published numbers adds up to some grim math.

Either way, I'm actually glad that this has occurred. While it's a bit painful on the pocketbook now, it will force both citizens and politicians to get off their ass and actually address the problem in a meaningful way rather than continue to say it's a problem that we won't have for some time.

This is easy to say in theory. Consider the actual way the world works. Katrina, for example: the theoretical best solution is for everyone to leave town and better support their levee system and infrastructure in the months before hurricane season and in the days they knew the storm was coming. Why didn't that happen? The irreparable divorce between imagination and actuality.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by molson

We've been really, really slow to realize this for whatever reason. This isn't like a housing bubble or tech bubble. There might be slight corrections here and there as we hit certain tresholds and demand decreases, but we'll see $300/oil before we ever see $50 oil again.

There's oil out there, but it's taking more and more energy and expense to acquire it, and it's just not the solution to rising prises.

It's really an opportunity if we saw it for what it is, one of the biggest and most important challenges to modern civilization.

I agree. It's part of why I'm trying to do my part to get information in front of folks in our age ranges so that we can do what will have to be done.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't complete buy that at this point.

No matter how you slice it, oil is a finite resource. There may be oil reserves we don't know about, but the sum total of all oil reserves, known and unknown, proven and unproven, is finite. On the demand side of the equation, humanity's demand for oil shows no propensity to lessen even its increase in demand.

If you're arguing that there's more oil out there than we know about, and as such "supply" will last longer than we predict, that's another argument. In which case I direct you to NoMyths' reply. Basically, even if these assumptions are true, we still have big problems looming.

1. This isn't a new situation that suddenly occurred in the past year or two. The supply of oil has been a concern for some time.

It's clearly not been enough of a concern to get people to actually do anything about it.

Also, the drastic increase in price doesn't match up when demand is factored into the equation. There's simply not a level of demand increase that should create this sort of price increase.

On the flipside, one could argue that the price of oil has been kept artifically low up until recently, when it has corrected to its present price.

I tend to take two conclusions from the past few years:

1. The quick increase in the price of oil (compared to historically) in the past few years is due to stagnant supply, increasing demand, geopolitical factors and that oil is a good investment especially when compared to other investment vehicles currently (U.S. stock market, U.S. real estate, etc...). As the U.S. economy improves, I think we'll see the rate of increase slow, only to quicken again once demand from China really heats up.

2. From this point forward, the price of oil will be considerably more volatile than in the past, due to the factors mentioned above.

[JPhillips]

Total oil supply is not as important as pumping capacity. Our problem is that there is perilously little spare pumping capacity globally and current wells diminish over time. We need to tap a lot of our known supply just to keep up with current daily pumping. I haven't seen much of any evidence that pumping capacity can be increased much over the next 20-50 years.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

No matter how you slice it, oil is a finite resource. There may be oil reserves we don't know about, but the sum total of all oil reserves, known and unknown, proven and unproven, is finite. On the demand side of the equation, humanity's demand for oil shows no propensity to lessen even its increase in demand.

If you're arguing that there's more oil out there than we know about, and as such "supply" will last longer than we predict, that's another argument. In which case I direct you to NoMyths' reply. Basically, even if these assumptions are true, we still have big problems looming.

It's clearly not been enough of a concern to get people to actually do anything about it.

Correct. I believe that there are more reserves and I also totally agree with the point that there are problems looming at some point. If the U.S. moves drastically right away to make a massive switch to drill for more oil to provide future domestic supply while moving quickly towards even a hybrid alternative, that would be a great step in the right direction.

The U.S. needs to stop pointing fingers at increasing demand in other countries and constrained supply in the Middle East and worry more about what they can control on their own. Increased drilling would bridge the gap for the time being and switching to hybrid or other energy source vehicles is something that the U.S. population finally appears ready to accept as a whole. I agree that people haven't done anything before now, but the price is reaching a point where people are finally feeling it to the point where they're forced to address the situation.

It should certainly be noted that I'm not ignoring the fact that something needs to be done. I just think that there are things that we can do domestically that can help the situation quite a bit. If we do it correctly, we could even become a leader in alternative fuels and have a profound effect and control on the world going forward, which is something this nation really needs to do to resurrect its image as a superpower.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Total oil supply is not as important as pumping capacity. Our problem is that there is perilously little spare pumping capacity globally and current wells diminish over time. We need to tap a lot of our known supply just to keep up with current daily pumping. I haven't seen much of any evidence that pumping capacity can be increased much over the next 20-50 years.

They could get a lot of supply going in the U.S. alone in 8-10 years if they needed to. Whether they actually do it or not is another situation.

[nilodor]

I wonder if oil companies are worried that these high prices are going to drive new alternative technology. We can't be that far off from some of these becoming worthwhile to develop.

Also I have to imagine that the developing countries demand is really driving the price of oil, especially China and India. I think Warren Buffet spoke to this, but that's kinda what his whole philosophy is based on so...

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Increased drilling would bridge the gap for the time being and switching to hybrid or other energy source vehicles is something that the U.S. population finally appears ready to accept as a whole.

1. Increased drilling would probably not have any real effect until 2030, which I'd put outside the range of "the time being".

Source:

A 2007 report says offshore drilling would not reduce gas prices soon.

The report by the Energy Information Administration in the U.S. Department of Energy said that opening up oil exploration off the United States coastline would not have a "significant impact" until 2030 because of the delay in starting a project.

"Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017," the report reads.

It also estimates that there are as much as 18 billion barrels of crude oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas off the coast of the Lower 48 states that could be tapped if the moratorium on offshore drilling were lifted.

Still, it says that even those amounts may not greatly affect the price at the pump.

"Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant," it reads.

2. Not everyone can afford a hybrid vehicle. Nor can we supply enough in a short to medium range of time.

They could get a lot of supply going in the U.S. alone in 8-10 years if they needed to. Whether they actually do it or not is another situation.

Care to cite your source for that estimate?

[NoMyths]

dola...

Originally Posted by nilodor

I wonder if oil companies are worried that these high prices are going to drive new alternative technology. We can't be that far off from some of these becoming worthwhile to develop.

Yes; in fact, many of them are investing significant amounts of money in researching the new technologies, which makes sense for the future of their companies. However, remember logistics: if a technology is invented, a signficant amount of time and resources will be required to develop and produce it.

Also I have to imagine that the developing countries demand is really driving the price of oil, especially China and India. I think Warren Buffet spoke to this, but that's kinda what his whole philosophy is based on so...

This is accurate: the demand from both China and India has exploded. It's also worth keeping in mind that the United States consumes approximately 25% of the world's energy. One country out of 34 developed nations (and dozens of developing ones).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

1. Increased drilling would probably not have any real effect until 2030, which I'd put outside the range of "the time being".


2. Not everyone can afford a hybrid vehicle. Nor can we supply enough in a short to medium range of time.


Care to cite your source for that estimate?

The argument that the supply would not create a substantial increase until 20 years from now isn't a reason to not do it. Waiting to do it for another 5-10 years and then waiting another 20 years after that only puts us in a worse situation.

There's a lot of plant capacity and plenty of resources to ramp up production in a big hurry if they need to do so. The automakers just need to have a reason to do so. The heavy losses they're taking right now really should be motivation enough, but who knows if it is.

The production curve is based on current timelines. If the U.S. got in a severe financial pinch, there are a lot of shortcuts that could be taken to significantly reduce the timeframe that oil supply could be increased. It's just a matter of resources and motivation. It's no different than war-time production. If there's something driving a need, it can be done and in a timely fashion.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The argument that the supply would not create a substantial increase until 20 years from now isn't a reason to not do it. Waiting to do it for another 5-10 years and then waiting another 20 years after that only puts us in a worse situation.

There's a lot of plant capacity and plenty of resources to ramp up production in a big hurry if they need to do so. The automakers just need to have a reason to do so. The heavy losses they're taking right now really should be motivation enough, but who knows if it is.

The production curve is based on current timelines. If the U.S. got in a severe financial pinch, there are a lot of shortcuts that could be taken to significantly reduce the timeframe that oil supply could be increased. It's just a matter of resources and motivation. It's no different than war-time production. If there's something driving a need, it can be done and in a timely fashion.

Again: the irreparable divorce between imagination and reality. I'd still prefer to see you citing evidence for your argument rather than asking us to believe your gut feeling, which is apparently not based in an understanding of the hard data.

[duckman]

I like how NoMyths insults people's intelligence. He's so nice about it.

[jonesz]

What we really need is a president to challenge the country to become Middle East oil independent in 10 years, much like Kennedy did with the moon. Unfortunately I really don't see that in either of our prespective candidates. Neither really seems to "get it".

I just saw an add on CNN from T. Boone Pickens drawing attention to his plan. Check it out here: pickensplan.com. I also heard him on CNBC this morning. He's waiting for the candidates to ask for his help, and up to this point, neither is biting.