Why aren't we drilling for oil?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

maybe you are both getting ridiculous emails from the same source

My source was the original press release by the USGS. coincidentally, I'm on their mailing list...

Originally Posted by scottw

...you and Bryan mentioned the Dakotas...did anyone else?

Scott, Scott, Scott...
it was in the very first post. Jim specifically named Dakotas.
try and keep up with the rest of the class

Also, Norway uses 240,000 barrels of oil/day. http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.asp...ph=consumption
we use ~ ten millions.

Kind of like comparing a grape and a watermelon, no?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

My source was the original press release by the USGS. coincidentally, I'm on their mailing list...

Scott, Scott, Scott...
it was in the very first post. Jim specifically named Dakotas.
try and keep up with the rest of the class
?

ya got me...Jim said Dakota

AHHHHH....USGS

Previous predictions on the longevity of oil have been consistently premature. In 1909, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that oil in the US would be exhausted by 1935. In 1916, they reported that the earlier assessment had been too optimistic, and that oil would run out in 1921. In 1919, the USGS revised their estimate, and predicted that the US would run out of oil in 1928
In 1922 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) warned that America was going to run out of oil within 20 years. In 1956, M. King Hubbert(I don't know who Hubbard is but this guy wrote a book too), at the time a geophysicist with Shell Oil, predicted that U.S. oil production would peak by 1970.
Despite the critics, the USGS’s numbers from the 2000 study still retain their status as the official US government view. The USGS’s position back in 1962 denied a 1956 warning by M. King Hubbert that U.S. oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. The USGS told then-Interior-Secretary Stewart Udall that the USA probably wouldn’t hit peak production until near the turn of the century.
Back in 2000, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), USGS data, plotted their first “reference case” that showed peak production in 2016; since then they’ve replotted the curve to show a peak delayed until 2043....

and so on...and so on...

ARE YOU NOTICING A TREND????

as time goes on we seem to advance technologically and find new and more advanced ways to locate and extract these resources as well as optimize our use of them.....even after they were supposed to be depleted

[zimmy]

Jim, The cost/benefit analysis for a place like ANWR clearly indicates that the benefits do not outweigh the potential environmental impacts of drilling there. As you saw in the gulf, offshore drilling has risks serious enough that Jeb Bush did not want it expanded for Florida
. Prince Williams sound has not completely recovered after 20 years. The effects on the Gulf will also likely last decades. If the benefits were as great as you initially implied I would be with you. I do not think 3 cents per gallon 20 years from now is worth it. We could have raised CAFE standards for cars 20 years ago and saved way more oil over that time than the US could have drilled. Conservatives fought it. Reduced consumption would have also reduced demand and prices would have been cheaper and more stable than now. The reason they are going up is demand in China and somewhat in India. Now the conservatives scream drill baby. It is a bit of BS. Drilling for oil here is not a fix for the economy or unemployment or gas prices. If it were, I would support expansion. With some simple conservation and higher fuel standards we could have cut our consumption 10% and stopped importing from Saudi Arabia years ago.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Jim, The cost/benefit analysis for a place like ANWR clearly indicates that the benefits do not outweigh the potential environmental impacts of drilling there. As you saw in the gulf, . Prince Williams sound has not completely recovered after 20 years. The effects on the Gulf will also likely last decades. If the benefits were as great as you initially implied I would be with you. I do not think 3 cents per gallon 20 years from now is worth it. We could have raised CAFE standards for cars 20 years ago and saved way more oil over that time than the US could have drilled. Conservatives fought it. Reduced consumption would have also reduced demand and prices would have been cheaper and more stable than now. The reason they are going up is demand in China and somewhat in India. Now the conservatives scream drill baby. It is a bit of BS. Drilling for oil here is not a fix for the economy or unemployment or gas prices. If it were, I would support expansion. With some simple conservation and higher fuel standards we could have cut our consumption 10% and stopped importing from Saudi Arabia years ago.

"The cost/benefit analysis for a place like ANWR clearly indicates that the benefits do not outweigh the potential environmental impacts of drilling there."

OK, so you are saying that the damage to the environment will outweigh any economic impact. I agree that the environment needs to be considered. What evidence is there that suggests that the damage to the environment would be greater than the economic lift?

"offshore drilling has risks serious enough that Jeb Bush did not want it expanded for Florida"

So now you're listening to Jeb Bush?

How many serious accidents have there been with offshore drilling? People get killed in cars every day, so should we switch to rickshaws? I know it sounds cold, but you don't throw away a technology because of a handful of deaths...

"Drilling for oil here is not a fix for the economy or unemployment or gas prices."

Based on what? Please cite a non-political source that says that domestic drilling will not create jobs, and will not lower domestic prices?

I also agree with you that if the environmental cost is too great, we shouldn't do it. But I'm not going to let Al Gore or Rachael Maddow tell me what the environmental cost is. Almost any estimate of environmental damage is pure speculation. Look at hard, irrefutable facts. Norway does it, and it's beautiful there. Maybe their oil doesn't require as much environmental scarring as ours?

[zimmy]

JimCT- to clarify, in reference to the cost/benefit analysis for ANWR, that is in my opinion, based on the sensitivity of the area for breeding populations. In the future, as oil becomes more scarce and technology continues to limit the impact, I might change my mind. I don't see it as an issue of it's now or never.

I think Jeb Bush's opposition indicates that there are substantial risks. If anyone should be pro drilling, it would be him.

There certainly will be some jobs created.

I will have to find the sources for the effect of drilling on prices, but they are ridiculously low given the rancor that surrounds the debate.

[Raider Ronnie]

I had a conversation with my neighbor about this topic of not drilling in this country.
My neighbor works for a big environmental company and deals with oil companies every week.
Neighbor says we do far more drilling in this country than people think.
(Pennslyvania for one state I would never have thought)
He also says the problem in this country is the speculators & Wall st.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Also an interesting article in Time on fracking and methane production... very controversial in parts of PA and other states...

[likwid]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Also an interesting article in Time on fracking and methane production... very controversial in parts of PA and other states...

GF's family has property in PA that has fracked wells on it.

The water is..... not good.

[UserRemoved]

HERE'S WHY

Energy in America: EPA Rules Force Shell to Abandon Oil Drilling Plans - FoxNews.com