Why aren't we drilling for oil?

[Jim in CT]

I paid >$4.00 for 87 octane at the pump today in CT.

Our country is sitting on untold jillions of gallons of crude (Alaska, the Dakotas, the Gulf). If we followed Norway's lead and headed down a path of responsible exploitation of this resource, we would...

- create thousands of good, sustainable jobs.
- become less reliant on the Mideast and all the headaches that go along with that
- be paying $0.99 a gallon for gas.
- be exporting oil, at our terms, to China and India

I have been backpacking north of the Arctic circle in Alaska. The pipeline isn't hurting anything, the caribou herds are growing by almost 10% a year.

And as desirable as renewable energy is, it's not going to replace oil in the next 20 years,it just isn't.

Put all that together...why in God's name are we sitting on this winning powerball ticket, and choosing not to cash it in?

I don't get it. I just don't get it.....

[Raven]

conservationists just say NO

or ask yourself ....why have we so few refineries
or none planned to be BUILT

almost seems as like they know something
and we are being kept in the DARK

oh you say you wanna tax the RICH ?
ok then TAX Exon>Mobile

[Fly Rod]

The person you voted for President suspended drilling.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I paid >$4.00 for 87 octane at the pump today in CT.

Just got home and it's $3.69 down the street from me in MA. You can thank that tax-heavy state government of yours for the extra $.30. Even before their more recent raise to the gas tax, I remember every time I drove home to MA that gas was $.15-.25 cheaper.

The first gas station on Rt 101 (probably Rt 6 at that point) over the border in RI was always packed.

[zimmy]

What, you think the oil companies are going to put all the oil they drill in the US into the US market? Even if they were drilling everywhere here, it wouldn't lower prices. When you say "we" are you saying you want the government to drill for oil?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Just got home and it's $3.69 down the street from me in MA. You can thank that tax-heavy state government of yours for the extra $.30. Even before their more recent raise to the gas tax, I remember every time I drove home to MA that gas was $.15-.25 cheaper.

The first gas station on Rt 101 (probably Rt 6 at that point) over the border in RI was always packed.

$4.16 in central CT today (that's 87 octane with a credit card, cash in 9 cents cheaper). It's gone up 35 cents in the last 2 weeks. We'll be at $5.00 by the 4th of July.

Again, what are the arguments against drilling? Anyone here been to Norway? They have drilling operations everywhere, it woule never occur to them to let oil go untapped. And it's a spectacularly beautiful country, with one of the best economies in the world.

Many issues are so complex that there's no obvious answer. In this case, it's unfathomable to me.

[mosholu]

Same story for nat gas. It makes you wonder.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Again, what are the arguments against drilling? Anyone here been to Norway? They have drilling operations everywhere, it woule never occur to them to let oil go untapped. And it's a spectacularly beautiful country, with one of the best economies in the world.

You know that gas in Norway is double the cost in the US, right?

[zimmy]

Oh yeah, the other part of that... state owned oil company sells it's oil to the world market. Let's hope Obama doesn't suggest another $5 in taxes on gas and gov. takeover and expansion of oil production in the US.

[JohnnyD]

I haven't done any major research but I've heard snippets about the US having Oil Reserves in the Mid-West that could potentially be greater than any other country in the Western Hemisphere. Supposedly it's sweet crude too.

I'm probably mixing my facts but I thought that there were also reports we had 200 years worth of natural gas out there too.

Ugh... off to try and find a link with more info.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You know that gas in Norway is double the cost in the US, right?

Zimmy, they can afford it. Everyone in Norway is rich, because of the oil. If I had an oil well in my backyard, i wouldn't care what the price of gas was.

Norway is the only western-lite socialism country that works. And it works there for 2 reasons. First, they have more oil than they know what to do with, and the take advantage of that.

Second, they don't allow any menaingful immigration, and the immigrants that are allowed to come in, must show they can take care of themselves.

So I love it when liberals say we should be more like Norway, because I tell them I agree, because that wouod mean drilling for oil and claimping down on immigration we can't afford. At that point, the liberal either changes the topic or calls me a racist...Either way, I know I've won...

[JohnR]

Remember we didn't drill in Alaska 10 years ago because it was hurtful and take 10 years to reap any meaningful reward?

10 Years ago. 10 years for production. 10 years. Hmmm.

We need investment in clean energy. We need to be leading scientifically on solar, wind, nuke, bio-fuels (algae is so beautiful).

Clean energy COULD be the next tech sector, or biomedical / life sciences boom, with the USA again leading instead of following. While simultaneously developing SAFELY our existing fuel sources.

Off topic, I hear there is an Atlas Shrugged movie coming out.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Remember we didn't drill in Alaska 10 years ago because it was hurtful and take 10 years to reap any meaningful reward?

10 Years ago. 10 years for production. 10 years. Hmmm.

We need investment in clean energy. We need to be leading scientifically on solar, wind, nuke, bio-fuels (algae is so beautiful).

Clean energy COULD be the next tech sector, or biomedical / life sciences boom, with the USA again leading instead of following. While simultaneously developing SAFELY our existing fuel sources.

Off topic, I hear there is an Atlas Shrugged movie coming out.

Of course you are correct, we need to lead the way on alternatives, and those alternative sources you list are the future. But those alternatives are nowhere near being ready to replace fossil fuels, so why sit on a winning Powerball ticket? We desperately need the money, let's cash it in.

It's no coincidence that our #1 economic concern (oil) and the number 1 national security concern (middle east) are so intertwined. Let's get our own oil, and then we have no reason to stick our necks out (my neck in particular) everytime a new sociopath steps up over there.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Zimmy, they can afford it. Everyone in Norway is rich, because of the oil. If I had an oil well in my backyard, i wouldn't care what the price of gas was.

Norway is the only western-lite socialism country that works. And it works there for 2 reasons. First, they have more oil than they know what to do with, and the take advantage of that.

Second, they don't allow any menaingful immigration, and the immigrants that are allowed to come in, must show they can take care of themselves.

So I love it when liberals say we should be more like Norway, because I tell them I agree, because that wouod mean drilling for oil and claimping down on immigration we can't afford. At that point, the liberal either changes the topic or calls me a racist...Either way, I know I've won...

Average income in Norway is 36,000 usd. The top tax bracket is 48%. Gas is taxed heavily to keep people from driving. What else do you like about Norway? Yeah, they drill alot of oil... It is a bastion of liberalism. Jim, I think you may be a liberal at heart. Actually, maybe more of a socialist.

[zimmy]

I couldn't let this go, because like so much I read on here, reality is so different than truth. Jim in CT says everyone in Norway is rich so they can afford $10/gallon for gas. Norway per capita income is $36,000. Per capita in US is $39,626. So looks like we are wealthier, no? Maybe $11 per gallon is reasonable here since we are rich and can afford it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I couldn't let this go, because like so much I read on here, reality is so different than truth. Jim in CT says everyone in Norway is rich so they can afford $10/gallon for gas. Norway per capita income is $36,000. Per capita in US is $39,626. So looks like we are wealthier, no? Maybe $11 per gallon is reasonable here since we are rich and can afford it.

I see you said it again.

Zimmy showed (twice) that average pay in Norway is higher than in the US, so I guess I was wrong when I said Norway is wealthier than the US, right Zimmy? So I guess you got me, right?

Ummm, not even close. Zimmy, there is more to a nation's economic health than average paycheck. For example, in the case of Norway, if you don't have to worry about the costs of healthcare, education, or retirement, than you can do a whole lot more with a smaller paycheck. If I didn't need to pay for healthcare, retirement, or college for my kids, I could afford $25 a gallon and be far wealthier than I am today. Still with me?

Check out this link, shows standard of living by nation.

http://able2know.org/topic/55762-1

Norway is #1. That means the best. That means they are wealthier than everyone else, including us. So either (1) you just proved that study to be flawed, or (2) your little "fact" falls way short of telling the whole story. Norway has the highest standard of living in the world, and their entire economy is based on oil. We have lots of oil, but the Democrats want to just let it sit there, so that we can be enslaved and impoverished by Middle eastern nations run by fanatical sociopaths. Those Middle Eastern nations take our huge sums of money, and they do awesome things with it, such as fund terrorists and finding new ways to treat their women even more barbarically (I have spent time there, I saw things you would not imagine). I'm sorry if that fact makes Democrats look, well, stupid, but it's still a fact, so please don't take that out on me.

You want to ask me a question, awesome. You want to make me out to be an ignoramus or an idiot, that's harder, because I think before I decide what my opinions are.

[zimmy]

Most people don't own cars in Norway because gas is so expensive. The g.d.p is higher per capita, but it is a socialized country. The ones who are stupid about oil are not the democrats. The republicans want their followers to believe that gas prices would be lower if we drilled more. That is not true. Exxon and bp would increase their profits. Gas prices may drop a few cents on the dollar. Norway has the highest standard of living because it is a small country with government owned oil. I will ask the question directly Jim, do you want government owned oil in the US and 48% federal income tax rate for wealthiest citizens? Norway is a tax and spend country. It seems like the antithesis of what you have indicated you want in all threads but this one.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Most people don't own cars in Norway because gas is so expensive. The g.d.p is higher per capita, but it is a socialized country. The ones who are stupid about oil are not the democrats. The republicans want their followers to believe that gas prices would be lower if we drilled more. That is not true. Exxon and bp would increase their profits. Gas prices may drop a few cents on the dollar. Norway has the highest standard of living because it is a small country with government owned oil. I will ask the question directly Jim, do you want government owned oil in the US and 48% federal income tax rate for wealthiest citizens? Norway is a tax and spend country. It seems like the antithesis of what you have indicated you want in all threads but this one.

Zimmy, I'm trying man, I really am.

"The republicans want their followers to believe that gas prices would be lower if we drilled more. That is not true. Exxon and bp would increase their profits."

Please support that statement. In Alaska, the citizens (the regular folks) have made an absolute fortune thanks to the drilling. The state has zillions of dollars to fund needed social programs, and there are almost no taxes. Zimmy, you go tell the folks in Alaska that they haven't benefitted from oil, you go ahead and do that. For God's sake, every citizen in the state gets a check from the oil companies every year (thanks to Gov Palin).

"Norway has the highest standard of living because it is a small country with government owned oil. "

Agreed, Norway and the US are very different...

"Jim, do you want government owned oil in the US "

Maybe. For damn sure I'd rather the govt be exploiting it than having it sit there collecting dust! My answer is this...we might be sitting on trillions of dollars worth of oil, and if we are smart about it, we could do an awful lot of good with that money. Do i want the govt to run it? Probably not, but I wouldn't want the private companies to run wild, either. That oil belongs to the citizens of the US, not to any company. We could do so much good. I just don't see what the liberal concern is, I always thought it was the environment...

Zimmy, can you answer a direct question? Why are you opposed to drilling? Don't you see any potential benefit? Adding jobs, generating God-knows-how-much revenue, which could feed hungry kids, improve schools? Eliminating our dependence on the Middle East? Why aren't those noble goals?

Heck, I'd support a proposal that said that every cent of revenue would have to go to anti-poverty programs. i just think we could do an awful lot of good, and I don't see a downside. You might say that if a few fat-cats get rich, we shouldn't do it. But if we can help millions of Americans who need help at the same time, who cares if a few jerks get rich? That doesn't hurt anyone...I'm thinking of the good we could do with a huge windfall.

"Norway is a tax and spend country"

That's true. And they are a fabulously successful tax-and-spend country, thanks to oil. My original point was this...the Norwegians have found a way to capitalize on their oil deposits, and they are doing it in a way that (1) makes them rich, and (2) has no impact on their environment. Why can't we do the same thing? I'm not saying we need to become socialist to pull it off, I'm just saying that if they have had amazing success with their oil deposits, why don't we do the same thing?

If a few fat-cats in this country get rich along the way, that's better than making some Saudi princes rich, isn't it? That's what we're doing today...

What do you think?

[scottw]

c'mon Jim, everyone knows and all economists will agree that when you increase production and supply...in particular, domestic supply, so that you don't have to transport it halfway around the world....the result is always increased consumer prices because greedy executives will raise the prices anyway or gorge on the difference to line their pockets which is why we have always had the most expensive gas in the world courtesy of greedy big oil...and also why every congressional investigation into price gouging has produced..????...do I have to explain everything to you????


ZIMMY should get some credit for creativity and I love the beanie with the propeller on top...

[QUOTE=zimmy;852028] The ones who are stupid about oil are not the democrats. The republicans want their followers to believe that gas prices would be lower if we drilled more. That is not true. Exxon and bp would increase their profits. Gas prices may drop a few cents on the dollar.

HEY...WHERE ARE THE CALLS BY THE DEMS FOR INVESTIGATIONS INTO PRICE GOUGING ? 4 BUCKS!!!

[zimmy]

Jim, I think you have some different information than I have ever seen. Independent analysis estimates opening anwr would drop prices up to 3 cents. The idea that we can have wealth like Norway from drilling is ridiculous. If that were true, I would line up behind drilling. we have a huge population and our potential oil production is much less. My wife's uncle is a recently retired Exxon engineer who's job was to locate oil reserves. we have discussed this issue in the past and he says that there is not nearly enough potential in our reserves to make much difference at all. What you are talking about is not even close to reality. I wish it were.

[zimmy]

[QUOTE=scottw;852067]c'mon Jim, everyone knows and all economists will agree that when you increase production and supply...in particular, domestic supply, so that you don't have to transport it halfway around the world....the result is always increased consumer prices because greedy executives will raise the prices anyway or gorge on the difference to line their pockets which is why we have always had the most expensive gas in the world courtesy of greedy big oil...and also why every congressional investigation into price gouging has produced..????...do I have to explain everything to you????


ZIMMY should get some credit for creativity and I love the beanie with the propeller on top...

Originally Posted by zimmy

The ones who are stupid about oil are not the democrats. The republicans want their followers to believe that gas prices would be lower if we drilled more. That is not true. Exxon and bp would increase their profits. Gas prices may drop a few cents on the dollar.

HEY...WHERE ARE THE CALLS BY THE DEMS FOR INVESTIGATIONS INTO PRICE GOUGING ? 4 BUCKS!!!

Ok genius, how much has oil production decreased in the last 6 months to drive prices up? That's what I thought. Also, point me to the info that shows that US oil production would alter gas prices more than 5%. Can't do that either, can you?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Jim, I think you have some different information than I have ever seen. Independent analysis estimates opening anwr would drop prices up to 3 cents. The idea that we can have wealth like Norway from drilling is ridiculous. If that were true, I would line up behind drilling. we have a huge population and our potential oil production is much less. My wife's uncle is a recently retired Exxon engineer who's job was to locate oil reserves. we have discussed this issue in the past and he says that there is not nearly enough potential in our reserves to make much difference at all. What you are talking about is not even close to reality. I wish it were.

Zimmy, if you genuinely believe that we'd still be paying $4.25 for gas if it came from the Dakotras instead of from Saudi Arabia, you might be beyond help. When gas last rove above $4.00 a gallon a few years ago, Bush announced that he was CONSIDERING tapping into our reserves, and prices dropped by 25 cenys immediately.

forget about a reduction in gas prices, which for some reason you can't see what I'm saying. Let's just focus on the fact that there's revenue to be had by tapping into the oil and selling it. It'll create jobs, which creates tax revenue. It'll also reduce our dependence on the Middle East. What's wrong with that? Why not do it?

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=zimmy;852103]

Originally Posted by scottw

Ok genius, how much has oil production decreased in the last 6 months to drive prices up? That's what I thought. Also, point me to the info that shows that US oil production would alter gas prices more than 5%. Can't do that either, can you?

It's common sense, Zimmy, isn't it? Even if it was a quasi-government entity exploiting the oil here, it has to be cheaper than shipping it from the Midle East.

Zimmy, are you aware that the folks who run those countries are all multi-billionaires? Wouldn't it be better if all that money stayed here?

Are you really that dense? We export tens of billions of dollars every year to the Middle East. Do you not see any advantage to keeping that money here instead? No difference to you? None at all?

[scottw]

[QUOTE=zimmy;852103


Ok genius, how much has oil production decreased in the last 6 months to drive prices up? That's what I thought. [/QUOTE]

world demand and instability in the middle east(we can insulate ourselves against both with more domestic production) have caused prices to rise...or possibly it's evil American big oil scheming and price gouging...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

world demand and instability in the middle east(we can insulate ourselves against both with more domestic production) have caused prices to rise...or possibly it's evil American big oil scheming and price gouging...

$4.25 in my town and climbing...

[zimmy]

Jim, It is not a question of me being dense. It is a question of reality. Where do we have this oil you are talking about. I don't mean the stuff in those ridiculous chain emails that make claims about the Dakotas having more oil than the middle east or any of that garbage, which have clearly been shown to be fake. We don't have an enormous amount of oil. You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Jim, It is not a question of me being dense. It is a question of reality. Where do we have this oil you are talking about.

PREPARED BY THE REPUBLICAN STAFF OF THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE

America’s Tremendous Oil Potential

The extent of America’s petroleum resources has been mischaracterized for nearly a century. Opponents of greater production routinely claim that an increase in domestic supply could never be sustained because America is “running out of oil.” The truth? Greater domestic oil production is not only possible – it is necessary to help protect America from global supply disruptions, create new jobs, pay down the debt, close our trade gap, reduce energy prices, and expedite the development of next-generation technologies.

Is America “running out of oil”?
• No. Dire predictions have been made since at least 1919, when the head of a federal agency announced that “within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline.” Obviously, that was incorrect.
• Some claim the United States “has just 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, but consumes 25 percent of the world’s oil.” This is highly misleading, because reserves are just one small part of the full picture. America is actually the world’s third-largest oil producer. Our proven oil “reserves” have never exceeded 40 billion barrels, but somehow we’ve produced nearly 200 billion barrels since 1900.
How much oil does America have?
• According to a November 2010 report from the Congressional Research Service, which surveyed existing government estimates, the United States’ technically recoverable oil resource base totals 162.9 billion barrels.
• That’s enough oil to sustain our current rate of production for the next 62 years. If domestic production was increased to replace all imports from the Persian Gulf, our own oil would still last for about 50 years.
• America could also have far more conventional crude oil. We’ve never fully explored our own lands, but whenever we look for oil, we tend to find more. Estimates for offshore oil have now more than quadrupled. Onshore, Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay was originally estimated between 1 and 5 billion barrels, but has already yielded more than 16 billion barrels and is still producing over a half million barrels each day.
Where is America’s oil located?
• America’s oil base consists of 28.4 billion barrels of proven reserves, 48.6 billion barrels of onshore resources (including natural gas liquids), 85.8 billion barrels of offshore resources. In 2010, 31 States produced oil.
• The continental OCS holds a prolific amount of oil. There are roughly 72 billion barrels in the Gulf of Mexico OCS; 13 billion barrels in the Pacific OCS; and another 4 billion barrels in the Atlantic OCS.
• Roughly 40 billion barrels of oil are located in northern Alaska in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; the non-wilderness portion of ANWR; and Alaska’s OCS. All of these resources, however, are currently off-limits.
What about America’s unconventional oil?
• While the U.S. is known as the “Saudi Arabia” of coal, our oil shale deposits may be even greater. The Interior Department estimates we have at least 800 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil shale.
• At current rates of consumption, that is equivalent to a 114-year supply of conventional oil.
What other benefits are associated with American oil production?
• A 2008 study from ICF International concluded that greater domestic oil production would increase government revenues by $547 billion to $1.7 trillion and create 114,000 to 161,000 jobs by 2030.
• A December 2010 study by Wood Mackenzie concluded that greater domestic oil production would likely generate $150 billion in government revenues and create up to 530,000 jobs by 2025.
• New domestic oil production would help protect America from supply disruptions by reducing the need for imported oil. It would also reduce oil prices by increasing supply, adding to global spare capacity, and generating revenues that can be invested in technologies (e.g. alternative vehicles) that reduce oil demand.

[scottw]

The first is the report out of Texas that Chevron and other major oil companies have increased drilling in a very old field. Texas' legendary Permian Basin Field (which stretches from West Texas to New Mexico) was first exploited in 1925, and its reserves started declining decades ago. But recent advances in oil-extraction technologies such as fracking (the high-pressure injection of sand, water, and small amounts of chemicals into rock or other formation to loosen up the oil and separate it from the surrounding rock) are making oil in that old field easier to extract.

In fact, this year alone, Chevron will increase its investment in this one field by $600 million (which represents a third more money than it invested here last year) and drill twice as many wells as last year.

Spurring this new interest in old wells is the high price of oil -- now hovering around $110 a barrel -- due in turn to Obama's virtual moratorium on deep-sea drilling together with the spike in uncertainty in the Middle East (including our kinetic military action in Libya). Besides Chevron, both Exxon and ConocoPhillips are developing new wells (and reopening old ones) in the Permian Basin.

The second piece informs us of a potential new source of oil. As the piece notes, Canada is already our biggest oil supplier, providing us with more than two of the eleven million barrels we use every day. But given the spike in prices and the turmoil in the Middle East, interest is growing in a new proposed pipeline project.

The project, called the "Keystone XL Pipeline," envisions a pipeline from Alberta, Canada all the way down to Texas (where many of our refineries are). It would have connections to other pipelines to other refineries in the U.S. along the way. The Keystone Pipeline would have the capacity to give us yet another 1.1 million barrels a day from our kindly cousins in the Great White North.

So letting this project proceed would seem like an economic and national security no-brainer. Alas, the pipeline has been stalled by the no-brainers in Washington since 2008. Environmentalists have been in heavy opposition to the pipeline, and despite favorable reviews by both the State and Energy Departments, Obama -- the biggest no-brainer in Washington -- has ordered yet more environmental studies.

The environmentalist beef with the project is that the oil the Canadians will ship through the pipeline is be extracted from the reserves in their vast ranges of tar sands. These reserves are huge -- on the order of 175 billion barrels of oil, which makes for more than two-thirds of Saudi Arabia's proven reserves. But the environmentalists fear that the after-products of the tar sand oil extraction will harm the environment.

However, it is both presumptuous and silly for American environmentalists to oppose this joint project to ship Canadian oil. First, it is not as if Canada were a corrupt, third-world dictatorship where the leaders are willing to despoil their own country for some low-end cash. The Canadians have a fine record on environmental protection (as good as our own, in fact). And they have gotten the extraction process for tar-sand oil very ecologically safe. Over 80% of the water used in the extraction process is recycled, and the "trailing ponds" (which contain the remains of the extraction process) are being planted over with trees and shrubbery. And remember: these tar sands are already laden with petrochemicals to begin with!

So a project that would bring an estimated 20,000 new construction jobs and 250,000 long-term jobs overall to a country with an unemployment rate still up around 9%, not to mention bring about $585 million in corporate and other taxes -- and $5 billion in property taxes -- to states most of whom are experiencing financial crises, is being held up by the usual green dreamers. You know the green dreamers: they oppose all sources of energy known to work, and they support only sources of energy proven to be inefficient.

The third article ironically takes us to the Middle East -- and, even more ironically, to Israel, a county that traditionally has been an oil and gas importer. Much to the chagrin of the surrounding states so eager for it to disappear, the scrappy Jewish state is turning out to be a surprise energy powerhouse thanks to its embrace of the fracking technology. I have already noted in an earlier piece elsewhere that Israel has employed fracking to liberate the natural gas in a huge shale field off it shoreline -- an estimated 16 trillion cubic feet of the stuff, or more than a century's worth of supply at Israel's current usage.

The shale fields in Israel also contain lots of oil. Israel's main shale field (about 30 miles southwest of Jerusalem) likely has reserves of oil about 95% of the total proven reserves of...Saudi Arabia! And unlike our own big field in Colorado, there is no aquifer running through it. In terms of shale oil reserves, Israel now ranks third in the world after the U.S. (which has an estimated 1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil) and China (with 355 billion barrels of it), and ahead of Russia.

All this is great news for Israeli security. Israel imports most of its oil by tanker from Russia and the former Russian empire, and in 2006, these supplies were cut off in Israel's war with Hezbollah. And Israel gets most of its natural gas from Egypt, which is considering cutting Israel off.

Look to these sorts of reports to continue...despite what the green dreamers would have you believe.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Take a read through Hubbards Peak, it's an interesting book written by a former oilman and at the very least has some interesting perspectives into the industry

Some reasons in my humble opinion (of my head, some of the numbers might be a bit off but I need to put the kid to bed and won;t be back on to spend an hour looking them up.

1. Environmental impacts, especially with oil shales. basically strip mining. Not including fracting and other potentially harmful impacts with gas and oil wells. I won't even bring up CO2 since you two will just dismiss it as leftist propaganda.

2. technically recoverable and economically recoverable are two different things. Many technically recoverable fields are only feasible at closer to $200 / barrel

3. If Chevron et al., starts drilling on leases in the Dakotas, it will go to world supply. they aren't mandated to sell to US only. capitalism at it's finest.

4. The USGS estimates of the Dakotas is higher than previously estimated, at a mean of ~4Bil. that's roughly 1 year of oil for the US at the current rate of ~10mil barrels/day. so we can have $0.99/gal for a year than back up to $4.00?

5. The recent USGS estimate of ANWAR has dropped considerably, to about 90 days (~1 Bil barrels). this is not voodoo; a lot of the new data came from additional exportation, so that line about 'there is always more than we thought.....'

6. Norway is smaller than MASSACHUSETTS population wide.

7. Fossil fuels are a 1-time use. So we should just use it all up as quickly as we can?

8. Should we really be advocating more offshore drilling after last summer's disaster... damn we have short memories... keep in mind, much of the oil they are mentioning are deeper than the DWH rig was in.

9. Most of us realize it is speculation driven, but a big upswing in the spring is refinery limitations as they change seasons or just refinery back-up So we should just add more refineries... where? I'd I didn't live a mile from one, how about you? have you been to northern NJ?

10. Jim, are you really advocating for state run oil? you lament the gov's ability to run anything, period, and want to put them in charge of this?
You are the only far-right socialist I know. At least when you finally run for office Jim, you'll have your own party...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

3. If Chevron et al., starts drilling on leases in the Dakotas, it will go to world supply. they aren't mandated to sell to US only. capitalism at it's finest. Zimmy said the stuff about the Dakotas is a"ridiculous chain email"

4. The USGS estimates of the Dakotas is higher than previously estimated, at a mean of ~4Bil. that's roughly 1 year of oil for the US at the current rate of ~10mil barrels/day. so we can have $0.99/gal for a year than back up to $4.00? that's if we only use oil from the Dakotas which only exists in ridiculous chain emails

7. Fossil fuels are a 1-time use. So we should just use it all up as quickly as we can? before China does

8. Should we really be advocating more offshore drilling after last summer's disaster we are...for other countries..I think we're even financing it ... damn we have short memories... keep in mind, much of the oil they are mentioning are deeper than the DWH rig was in.

9. Most of us realize it is speculation driven, but a big upswing in the spring is refinery limitations as they change seasons yeah, 4 dollar plus gas has almost nothing to do with world demand and the troubles in the middle east...it's those damn speculators...who is "most of us" you and Zimmy?... or just refinery back-up So we should just add more refineries where? I'd I didn't live a mile from one, how about you? have you been to northern NJ?

10. Jim, are you really advocating for state run oil? you lament the gov's ability to run anything, period, and want to put them in charge of this?
You are the only far-right socialist I know. At least when you finally run for office Jim, you'll have your own party...

aren't you going to post a clip from a comedy routine to back up your assertions ?