Ford Power Stroke Nation banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Gandy Dancer
Joined
·
5,972 Posts
Per your own link (if you just did a tad bit of research and clicked on a couple of links).

Salazar said Interior’s next five-year offshore leasing plan will run from 2012-2017, rather than upending the current 2007-2012 program.
But questions also remain about the remainder of the current 2007-2012 leasing schedule. A federal appeals court last year found that Interior botched a key environmental analysis when crafting the 2007-2012 plan and ordered a revised study.
Do you ever make an effort to find out if those e-mails you get are true? :rolleyes:

And before you start blathering, I am an advocate of increased drilling as well as opening ANWR.
 

·
FNG
Joined
·
6,018 Posts
Per your own link (if you just did a tad bit of research and clicked on a couple of links).





Do you ever make an effort to find out if those e-mails you get are true? :rolleyes:

And before you start blathering, I am an advocate of increased drilling as well as opening ANWR.
Links Gandy?
 

·
Gandy Dancer
Joined
·
5,972 Posts
Links Gandy?
Sure.

Offshore Drilling (click here)

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar dropped some hints Wednesday about his long-awaited policy on offshore oil-and-gas drilling in federal waters, which he hopes to announce later this month.

Salazar said Interior’s next five-year offshore leasing plan will run from 2012-2017, rather than upending the current 2007-2012 program.

That’s interesting because the Bush administration, on its way out the door, had proposed a draft 2010-2015 plan that would promote oil-and-gas development in large areas off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts (among other expansions).

Those regions had been off-limits until Congress allowed longstanding drilling bans to lapse in 2008 during a frenzied election-year debate over energy prices.

Nobody expected Salazar to adopt the Bush-era proposal whole cloth. But it had been unclear whether he would seek to modify it, or allow the current plan to run its course before a new lease sale schedule begins.

The White House has signaled that it is open to expanded offshore drilling as part of a comprehensive energy and climate package. Salazar’s upcoming announcement could tip the administration’s hand to some degree about what new areas it may be willing to consider.

But questions also remain about the remainder of the current 2007-2012 leasing schedule. A federal appeals court last year found that Interior botched a key environmental analysis when crafting the 2007-2012 plan and ordered a revised study.
 

·
Gandy Dancer
Joined
·
5,972 Posts
That essentially still confirms the delay tactic
Keep digging. ;)

The main delay from this administration is that Salazar has extended public comments for 6 months (from Bush's proposed March 23 deadline to Sept 23 deadline).

Considering that the courts slapped Bush in the face for a sloppy and incomplete environmental assessment, the 6 month delay seems prudent.

Offshore Drilling (click here)

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar suggested that some drilling will eventually be allowed. But he said the agency will give the public until Sept. 23 to comment, instead of the Bush administration's deadline of March 23. The agency will hold public meetings before a decision is made.

Salazar's announcement hinders the drilling schedule announced by the Bush administration on Jan. 16, the last federal workday of its term. That plan, which would have allowed drilling on up to 300 million acres off the U.S. coast, was to have taken effect in mid-2010. It allotted 60 days for public input.

The Bush administration's plan "was a headlong rush of the worst kind," Salazar said. "It was rigged to force harried decisions based on bad information."

Salazar's announcement came as a relief to officials in the energy industry, who feared that he would call for a renewal of a presidential moratorium on drilling off the coast. Bush allowed the moratorium to expire last summer.

"We don't see this as a bad thing," said Nicolette Nye, spokeswoman for the National Ocean Industries Association, which promotes offshore drilling. "We're pleased the new administration is continuing with the … process."


Environmentalists, who want the moratorium reinstated, were disappointed Tuesday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
728 Posts
What I don't understand is the people that want to raise such a fuss over drillilng in our own country are the very people that love there big suv's, diesel trucks, etc. Not that I am against either as you see in my avitar. I am just for: not getting further and further dependant on foriegn oil. We have screwed Canada (wich use to be out largest supplier of oil) over so bad with taxes that they are cutting deals with the Chinese. So now we are without a doubt making the countries that are hostile towards our way of life filthy rich. The way I look at it is. Oil and gas happens to be our #1 source of energy. Untill we find a new energy we need to use our own and stop giving out money to people like Hugo Chaves and several more that would love to see America fall. My buisness is oil and gas and I can even say we need another energy because we are seriously screwing this world up. But untill then. It is what it is. Be smart, use your own natural resources.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
728 Posts
Oops wrong avitar lol. Thought that was my truck
 

·
All done now
Joined
·
22,486 Posts
What I don't understand is the people that want to raise such a fuss over drillilng in our own country are the very people that love there big suv's, diesel trucks, etc. Not that I am against either as you see in my avitar. I am just for: not getting further and further dependant on foriegn oil. We have screwed Canada (wich use to be out largest supplier of oil) over so bad with taxes that they are cutting deals with the Chinese. So now we are without a doubt making the countries that are hostile towards our way of life filthy rich. The way I look at it is. Oil and gas happens to be our #1 source of energy. Untill we find a new energy we need to use our own and stop giving out money to people like Hugo Chaves and several more that would love to see America fall. My buisness is oil and gas and I can even say we need another energy because we are seriously screwing this world up. But untill then. It is what it is. Be smart, use your own natural resources.
Exactly, tell the Sierra Club and all the other tree huggers to shut up and pay attention. Tell the American oil companies to hire help, make deals with land owners and drill. If they make too much of a mess and don't keep it clean, the tree huggers can complain. But get that oil out of the ground and into refineries. Even if it won't be felt for ten years, lets get rolling on that ten years now.
 

·
Gandy Dancer
Joined
·
5,972 Posts
As I've mentioned earlier, I am a proponenet to increasing our exploration and production.

However, strict environmental regulations and oversight.............must be in place to protect our citizens.

I saw first hand what happens with a large spill (Exxon Valdez) and it is hard to fathom, for some people, how devastating it can be.

I also know that oil is a finite resource and if we don't get real serious about reducing our dependence on it (and not just reducing dependence on foreign oil).............a little budget deficit will be minuscule in comparison to the world we will be leaving future generations.
 

·
Gandy Dancer
Joined
·
5,972 Posts
But get that oil out of the ground and into refineries.
Our supply problem isn't primarily the amount of oil we are pumping out of the ground.

The lack of refining capacity is even a bigger issue.


Think about this.

Oil is a finite resource.

Companies only have so much to sell and the more they get for each unit, the more they make.

So............what is really their incentive to increase supply from building more refineries? After all, isn't this the true 'Free Market' way? ;)

I find it really ironic that there are a lot of people who whine about government being too involved in business but, want them to step in when the perception of oil industry manipulation is bandied about.

Pretty hypocritical don't ya think?
 

·
<-Friends bike
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
Think about this.

Oil is a finite resource.
I don't believe this & never will . Obviously no one knows whats there , where it came from , & whether or not it is being produced as we type..How many times over the years has a prediction been made for when we run out .. BS..
 

·
<-- it's like that
Joined
·
6,567 Posts
I don't believe this & never will . Obviously no one knows whats there , where it came from , & whether or not it is being produced as we type..How many times over the years has a prediction been made for when we run out .. BS..
Um..... what?

It is known fact that oil is limited, and we also know how it's produced. Not sure where you are getting your info (or lack thereof). What has been mis-stated over the years is when it will run out. Obviously as we discover new deposits, and increase drilling/recovering technology, we can prolong the supply.

But don't make the mistake of thinking that we have a never-ending supply of oil. All resources are limited.
 

·
Gandy Dancer
Joined
·
5,972 Posts
Um..... what?

It is known fact that oil is limited, and we also know how it's produced. Not sure where you are getting your info (or lack thereof). What has been mis-stated over the years is when it will run out. Obviously as we discover new deposits, and increase drilling/recovering technology, we can prolong the supply.

But don't make the mistake of thinking that we have a never-ending supply of oil. All resources are limited.
He obviously is a proponent of this goofy theory.

Oil is constantly produced (click here)

To begin with, oil is not a fossil fuel.

In fact, oil is abiotic,
not the product of long decayed biological matter. And oil, for better or for worse, is not a non-renewable resource. It, like coal, and natural gas, replenishes from sources within the mantle of earth. This is the real and true science of oil. Read all about it.
You have to admit though, by believing this goofy theory...........any potential conscience attack of using it up.................... goes right out the window.

I guess maybe for some people, the old saying is true................'Ignorance is bliss.' :D
 

·
FNG
Joined
·
6,018 Posts
Our supply problem isn't primarily the amount of oil we are pumping out of the ground.

The lack of refining capacity is even a bigger issue.


Think about this.

Oil is a finite resource.

Companies only have so much to sell and the more they get for each unit, the more they make.

So............what is really their incentive to increase supply from building more refineries? After all, isn't this the true 'Free Market' way? ;)

I find it really ironic that there are a lot of people who whine about government being too involved in business but, want them to step in when the perception of oil industry manipulation is bandied about.

Pretty hypocritical don't ya think?
Gandy they can not build more refineries. The government put a stop to that in the late 70's under Carter:poke:
 

·
Gandy Dancer
Joined
·
5,972 Posts
Gandy they can not build more refineries. The government put a stop to that in the late 70's under Carter.
Sorry Dave but, that's not true anymore. :poke:

New Refineries

There are plenty of reasons gas costs so much, but one of them is that the United States doesn't have enough refineries.

Who's to blame for the fact that refining supply can't keep up with our thirst for oil? Probably you.

And because of the concentration of people—and wealth—near the continental shelves, land is simply more valuable the closer you get to the water. As a result, shore dwellers have the most to lose from developments that might affect quality of life.
In addition of course, there has been a lot the more restrictive environmental requirements (started with Carter) that have driven up the costs of new refineries substantially. However, there is not an actual moratorium on building one...........they're just very expensive (for a lot of reasons)

But the real reason, is just plain old economics. Specifically supply and demand.

Why would any oil company (the only ones who can actually afford to build a refinery) want to increase the depletion of their finite supply? Instead, why not just keep selling at a more moderate pace, and higher price, and maximize their return on every barrel?

Makes sense from a business standpoint. :shrug:


PS. And no...............I'm not one of those naive people that think that oil producers are the ones who actually control the price of crude.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
728 Posts
But the real reason, is just plain old economics. Specifically supply and demand.

Someone finally said it. That is right. It is not really a matter of weather we are running out (and yes I know there is a limited supply) it is just like any other commodity. If your supply is higher that your demand. The prices is going to go to through the roof. This is the very reason oil prices bounced back so quickly. It fell from $140 a barrel(wich was probably a little bit of an inflated price) to under $30 a barrell then back to $50 within 4 months. Another 4 months and it was bouncing around $60 to $70 a barrel. The point is all the tree huggers can bitch about the price of oil as they like. Untill we learn to get back to competing in this market. Not a lot we can say about the price.
Refineries are a big problem. People are mislead when they think that drilling rigs are what causes a lot of damage to the enviroment. Not so. The biggest damage is from refineries. It takes a huge amount of fresh water to refine oil. Water that is then good for nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
741 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Gandy, you may be an "expert" on railroads, but you don't know s#it about oil/gas and refineries. Facts are that even in Alaska only, the amount of crude oil between Prudoe Bay and Anchorage is so undefineable as to say unbelievable. Now, on top of that, we, the US, have discovered untold billions amount of oil shale in the Bakken discovery in North Dakota and Canada, Barnett Shale discovery in Texas, Haynesville shale in Louisiana and Arkansas, huge amounts of new oil discovery in Pennsylvania and New Yrok state, not to mention the new huge discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico. The biggest problem with new refineries is the far-out regulations on clean air. If we could build new refineries in no-where Wyoming, Nevada and eastern Montana, then we could tell ALL of the middle east to shove it. I am talking just crude oil, not to mention the untold capped "dry" oil wells that have natural gas in the Monroe field, Wyoming Opal field, and on and on. Even your old state of Alaske is looking at a parallel pipeline for natural gas from all of the capped gas in Prudoe Bay. The Canadians say they will build a FREE pipeline for natural gas if Exxon/BP go through Canada and pick up the Makinzie Delta natural gas and take it to Detroit/Chicago. The only reason all this energy isn't getting to us, the US, is a demoncratic congress and a dumb-ass President. How long have we had a Department of Energy since Carter established it? What the hell have they done to help our energy problems? That is the first government department that needs to get axed, IMHO, as they haven't done a damn thing.
 

·
<-- it's like that
Joined
·
6,567 Posts
Gandy, you may be an "expert" on railroads, but you don't know s#it about oil/gas and refineries.
No, you don't know s#it. Let's look over your "facts".

Facts are that even in Alaska only, the amount of crude oil between Prudoe Bay and Anchorage is so undefineable as to say unbelievable.
Prudhoe Bay oil field holds an estimated 25 billion barrels of oil, with approximately 13 million barrels RECOVERABLE. Currently it produces over 900,000 barrels per day. To date, it's estimated that 11 billion of the 13 billion recoverable barrels have already been produced since 1977.

To put that in perspective, Ghawar Field in Saudi Arabia is estimated to have held 170 billion barrels of oil, with 80 billion barrels of RECOVERABLE oil, and currently produces 5 million barrels a day.

To say Prudhoe Bay oil field is undefineable or unbelieveable is laughable at best.

Now, on top of that, we, the US, have discovered untold billions amount of oil shale in the Bakken discovery in North Dakota and Canada
No, not untold billions. 3.65 billion according to the USGS reports in 2008. You're falling for an internet hoax from a few years back. The last Bakken oil field estimates from 1995 were smaller than the ones from 2008. Being a political year, with a sudden increase in the amount of oil in the Bakken, and being a year when oil prices were skyrocketing, some internet rumors circulated that the Bakken held more than 500 billion barrels. That was simply false.

Now for some perspective. 3.65 billion barrels of oil is the amount that we import to the U.S. in ONE YEAR.

Barnett Shale discovery in Texas
Large natural gas deposit (2.5 trillion cubic feet), but a relatively small oil deposit. The location of this deposit makes recovery difficult and expensive for 2 reasons. First, it's located under Dallas/Fort Worth. So dealing with extracting natural gas from underneath a large metroplex is a bit tricky. Second, it requires hydraulic fracturing to extract the natural gas, which is somewhat expensive of a process, and extremely difficult in a major metro area.

Haynesville shale in Louisiana and Arkansas
Another natural gas field. This one is big, and is currently in the top 5 largest natural gas fields in the world. Out of all the oil/gas reserves you've listed in this post, this is the only one that's actually big and is currently growing rapidly as far as per-day production.

huge amounts of new oil discovery in Pennsylvania and New Yrok state, not to mention the new huge discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico.
No, nothing major or groundbreaking in any of those regions.

The biggest problem with new refineries is the far-out regulations on clean air. If we could build new refineries in no-where Wyoming, Nevada and eastern Montana, then we could tell ALL of the middle east to shove it.
No, completely false. One of the formations you mentioned earlier, the Bakken, would only supply enough crude to eliminate imports for one year. That's it. Then it would be dry. Besides, refineries and reserves are two different things. Building new refineries still doesn't change where we get our oil. By the way, do you even know how much REFINED product (gasoline, diesel, etc) we EXPORT!?!?!?! Hint, it's quite a bit actually.

I am talking just crude oil, not to mention the untold capped "dry" oil wells that have natural gas in the Monroe field, Wyoming Opal field, and on and on.
Did you happen to research the cost of recovering the remaining oil in those fields? Do you know what the price of oil would have to be to make it a viable option? I'll give you a hint: much higher than the price is currently.

Even your old state of Alaske is looking at a parallel pipeline for natural gas from all of the capped gas in Prudoe Bay. The Canadians say they will build a FREE pipeline for natural gas if Exxon/BP go through Canada and pick up the Makinzie Delta natural gas and take it to Detroit/Chicago.
Wow, you are so far off it isn't even funny.

First, it's not an Exxon/BP pipeline. There are actually 2 competing pipelines. One is with BP and ConocoPhillips, and the other is with TransCanada and ExxonMobile. The one that has acquired a license from Alaska to build is the TransCanada/Exxon pipeline. Interesting to note that Sarah Palin herself made that possible and awarded the license when she signed the Alaska Gasline Inducement act, which awarded $500 million in seed money.

Free pipeline? AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Does $500 million sound like it's free?????

The only reason all this energy isn't getting to us, the US, is a demoncratic congress and a dumb-ass President. How long have we had a Department of Energy since Carter established it? What the hell have they done to help our energy problems? That is the first government department that needs to get axed, IMHO, as they haven't done a damn thing.
Yes, democratic congress and Obama are blocking everything right now, and have been since the Carter administration. To listen to some people talk, it sounds like Obama has been in office for nearly 30 years now, and is to blame for everything.

Pappy, try posting relevant information next time, rather than relying on WND articles and bull####.
 

·
Gandy Dancer
Joined
·
5,972 Posts
Gandy, you may be an "expert" on railroads, but you don't know s#it about oil/gas and refineries.
Actually, what I know is based on facts, not rhetoric, that I've researched. Not right-wing blathering that is supplied to you Republican puppets by big business.

I can just visualize you frothing at the mouth. LOL

And by the way, since when did a right-of-way flunky like yourself................become such an expert on oil development and production? :poke:


Facts are that even in Alaska only, the amount of crude oil between Prudoe Bay and Anchorage is so undefineable as to say unbelievable.
Bull.

ANWR has a large deposit but, there aren't much other known deposits between the 'North Slope and Anchorage.'

Besides, even if ANWR was opened and producing at max..........it only has enough for about 10% of US yearly consumption.
ANWR (click here)
The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that the so-called 1002 area (approximately 1.5 million acres) of the 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) along Alaska's northern coastal plain contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. That is the nation's single largest onshore oil reserve.

Critics rightly contend that ANWR output of 1.4 million barrels per day would have replaced only about 10 percent of U.S. petroleum imports last year.
Now, prove me wrong. ;)


Now, on top of that, we, the US, have discovered untold billions amount of oil shale in the Bakken discovery in North Dakota and Canada, Barnett Shale discovery in Texas, Haynesville shale in Louisiana
The only thing you forgot to mention is that the costs to extract these deposits (especially the shale formations), far exceed what they're worth at this time, until crude reaches a consistent +-$100 a barrel. Who is going to pay to extract oil at a loss?


and Arkansas, huge amounts of new oil discovery in Pennsylvania and New Yrok state, not to mention the new huge discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico.
Other than the previously stated issues with offshore drilling, if there is such great, economical finds in NY and PA.....why aren't they now drilling? It's the Dem's fault again? :rolleyes:


The biggest problem with new refineries is the far-out regulations on clean air. If we could build new refineries in no-where Wyoming, Nevada and eastern Montana, then we could tell ALL of the middle east to shove it.
Go back up and read my link. There are a LOT more problems (coastal location, water availability, etc.) standing in the way of economically building refineries than just EPA reg's (which admittedly, are substantial). Only the simplistic blame just Congress (which by the way, nothing was done when the Repub's were in the majority either. Got a whiny excuse for that too?)


I am talking just crude oil, not to mention the untold capped "dry" oil wells that have natural gas in the Monroe field, Wyoming Opal field, and on and on.
So once again, why aren't they on-line? Could it be because they are not profitable?


Even your old state of Alaske is looking at a parallel pipeline for natural gas from all of the capped gas in Prudoe Bay. The Canadians say they will build a FREE pipeline for natural gas if Exxon/BP go through Canada and pick up the Makinzie Delta natural gas and take it to Detroit/Chicago.
And you know who didn't want to put it through Canada and wanted it instead to go all the way to Valdez, thus maximizing royalties for the State of Alaska? Yeah, most Alaskans. And you know who was so anxious to get it going, regardless of the loss to Alaskans? Yup....your little dingbat Palin. ;)

I am way beyond your feeble comprehension of the issues regarding the Trans-Alaska/Canadian Gas Pipeline and you need to go do a little more research on it.

Not to mention one other, little, nagging, minor point.

It is currently not economically feasible, as there is a gas surplus, and no amount of finagling can entice any private company to spend the money. That's why the State of Alaska is contemplating using their Permanent Fund for it. Of course, all those conservatives are screaming because it might reduce their government handout every October for just living there (Permanent Fund Dividend).


The only reason all this energy isn't getting to us, the US, is a demoncratic congress and a dumb-ass President.
Are you really wound that tight? Have you forgotten all of the years the Repub's were in charge? Wow, talk about myopic vision.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top