|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Issue: Fuel Costs - 6/26/2008 5:32:05 PM
|
|
|
SavedByGraceMD
Posts: 739
Joined: 2/13/2008
From: the poconos
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: saved9201
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jeff_from_Kentucky
quote:
ORIGINAL: saved9201
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jeff_from_Kentucky
We could actually be getting a large supply of oil from ANWR within six months if they wanted to!
Link please.
- Julius
If I had one I would provide it. I read it in Newsweek a couple of years back. It was a quote from the oil company execs. They claimed that they already knew where to drill and that they could start getting oil within six months. I say let them do it and if they don't deliver, then fine them heavily.
Since you trust Newsweek, I did a search. Things must have changed since a couple years back:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/135323/output/print
From a May 2008 article in Newsweek.
“But opening up ANWR would lead to a negligible bump in world oil supply, and would provide barely five percent of what the U.S. consumes today. The spigot wouldn't even be fully opened until the mid 2020's -- if Congress acts now, which isn't at all likely. And Bush fails to acknowledge that investors aren't interested in building refineries for strong business reasons that go beyond the tangled permitting process.”
Here's another.
From the Department of Energy's "Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" (May 2008)
"The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018."
They go on to say that this would result in a 2 cent a gallon decrease by 2025. Two pennies. Seventeen years from now. I can't wait.
- Julius
Whether or not it saves us money or not, it will let the rest of the world and opec know that we are going to be independent of foreign oil. Between anwr and drilling off of the Florida coast which is where China and Cuba want to start drilling, we would have enough oil to stop getting it from anywhere else but right here. That in itself may lower prices due to opec realizing they are going to lose their golden egg. But I would rather pay $4 for gas from domestic oil than pay$2 for gas from foreign oil which is supplied by countries who hate everything about us other than our money.
_____________________________
Isaiah 41:10
"Fear not for I am with you,
Do not be dismayed for I am your God,
I will strengthen you and help you,
I will uphold you with my righteous right hand"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Issue: Fuel Costs - 6/29/2008 6:33:11 PM
|
|
|
wing2000
Posts: 1048
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Whether or not it saves us money or not, it will let the rest of the world and opec know that we are going to be independent of foreign oil. Between anwr and drilling off of the Florida coast which is where China and Cuba want to start drilling, we would have enough oil to stop getting it from anywhere else but right here.
Do you have a source for that statement?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Issue: Fuel Costs - 6/30/2008 1:49:57 PM
|
|
|
SavedByGraceMD
Posts: 739
Joined: 2/13/2008
From: the poconos
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wing2000
quote:
Whether or not it saves us money or not, it will let the rest of the world and opec know that we are going to be independent of foreign oil. Between anwr and drilling off of the Florida coast which is where China and Cuba want to start drilling, we would have enough oil to stop getting it from anywhere else but right here.
Do you have a source for that statement?
Which statement are you referring to?
_____________________________
Isaiah 41:10
"Fear not for I am with you,
Do not be dismayed for I am your God,
I will strengthen you and help you,
I will uphold you with my righteous right hand"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Issue: Fuel Costs - 6/30/2008 4:31:11 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3928
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
Folks, you will note that anywhere in the US, one can pull up to a pump and get as much gas as needed, although not at the price one prefers. That means there is an ample supply. That tells me that the argument that supply/demand drives price of gas is incorrect. I am old enough (young adults start rolling eyes now) to remember being unable to purchase gasoline because there wasn't enough. And the price doubled. That was 1973 and OPEC had found it's wings.
Moral of the story: lynch the speculators.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Issue: Fuel Costs - 6/30/2008 10:23:54 PM
|
|
|
wing2000
Posts: 1048
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
...this statement:
quote:
Between anwr and drilling off of the Florida coast which is where China and Cuba want to start drilling, we would have enough oil to stop getting it from anywhere else but right here.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Issue: Fuel Costs - 6/30/2008 11:31:26 PM
|
|
|
SavedByGraceMD
Posts: 739
Joined: 2/13/2008
From: the poconos
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wing2000
...this statement:
quote:
Between anwr and drilling off of the Florida coast which is where China and Cuba want to start drilling, we would have enough oil to stop getting it from anywhere else but right here.
an excerpt from am article written by Rebecca Hagelin, VP the Heritage Foundation(6/26/08)
"Fast forward to 2008, and it's abundantly clear that we can't leave huge deposits of energy to remain buried in our own backyard for another four years.
How huge are these deposits, you ask?
The latest estimates from the Interior Department indicate that the off-limits areas contain 19.1 billion barrels of oil and 83.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. According to Ben Lieberman, an energy expert at The Heritage Foundation, that's about 30 years' worth of imports from Saudi Arabia -- and enough natural gas to power America's homes for 17 years."
heres the link http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed062608a.cfm
add to that the million or so barrels a day from ANWR
"Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) chastised the Clinton White House in his opening comments, referring to the administration’s veto which halted legislation to drill for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The Republican’s solution hinges on increasing America’s oil supply.
“If indeed we had proceeded in ANWR at the time congress passed it,” said Bennett, “we would now be receiving from ANWR a million barrels of oil a day.” (source Ben Giles 6/27/08)
and the link to this one http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=2421
and one more
"But the mother lode is in shale rock. It's estimated that the Saudis have about 260 billion barrels under their sand. By comparison, with current technology, we can safely recover more than 800 billion barrels of the estimated 7 trillion barrels of oil in the shale rock from the Rocky Mountains. That means that current technology could give us more than three times the entire national resources of oil-rich Saudi Arabia.
Extracting oil from shale rock only recently has become economically feasible. It costs about $70 per barrel to extract and make the oil usable. When oil was $18 a barrel that would have been crazy. But at $138 a barrel, it's a bargain. And American companies can make money by supplying our nation's need, and lowering costs for all of us in the process." (source Ken Blackwell is member of NTU's Board of Directors)
link http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=1028&org_name=NTU
that is just 3, all of which I got links to from townhall.com
_____________________________
Isaiah 41:10
"Fear not for I am with you,
Do not be dismayed for I am your God,
I will strengthen you and help you,
I will uphold you with my righteous right hand"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Issue: Fuel Costs - 7/1/2008 10:07:10 AM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 750
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
Wow, then that means these high prices might actually be worth it!
The lady at the end of my road may have to stop filling her yard with those pink plastic eyesores! YAAAAAA!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Issue: Fuel Costs - 7/1/2008 12:38:07 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3928
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sophie11
Wow, then that means these high prices might actually be worth it!
The lady at the end of my road may have to stop filling her yard with those pink plastic eyesores! YAAAAAA!!!!!
Florida should be returned to it's normal state: a mosquito and alligator-infested swamp.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Issue: Fuel Costs - 7/1/2008 12:46:45 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3928
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
ORIGINAL: wing2000
...this statement:
quote:
Between anwr and drilling off of the Florida coast which is where China and Cuba want to start drilling, we would have enough oil to stop getting it from anywhere else but right here.
an excerpt from am article written by Rebecca Hagelin, VP the Heritage Foundation(6/26/08)
"Fast forward to 2008, and it's abundantly clear that we can't leave huge deposits of energy to remain buried in our own backyard for another four years.
How huge are these deposits, you ask?
The latest estimates from the Interior Department indicate that the off-limits areas contain 19.1 billion barrels of oil and 83.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. According to Ben Lieberman, an energy expert at The Heritage Foundation, that's about 30 years' worth of imports from Saudi Arabia -- and enough natural gas to power America's homes for 17 years."
heres the link http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed062608a.cfm
add to that the million or so barrels a day from ANWR
"Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) chastised the Clinton White House in his opening comments, referring to the administration’s veto which halted legislation to drill for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The Republican’s solution hinges on increasing America’s oil supply.
“If indeed we had proceeded in ANWR at the time congress passed it,” said Bennett, “we would now be receiving from ANWR a million barrels of oil a day.” (source Ben Giles 6/27/08)
and the link to this one http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=2421
and one more
"But the mother lode is in shale rock. It's estimated that the Saudis have about 260 billion barrels under their sand. By comparison, with current technology, we can safely recover more than 800 billion barrels of the estimated 7 trillion barrels of oil in the shale rock from the Rocky Mountains. That means that current technology could give us more than three times the entire national resources of oil-rich Saudi Arabia.
Extracting oil from shale rock only recently has become economically feasible. It costs about $70 per barrel to extract and make the oil usable. When oil was $18 a barrel that would have been crazy. But at $138 a barrel, it's a bargain. And American companies can make money by supplying our nation's need, and lowering costs for all of us in the process." (source Ken Blackwell is member of NTU's Board of Directors)
link http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=1028&org_name=NTU
that is just 3, all of which I got links to from townhall.com
The current problem is not supply. There's plenty. Any additional oil goes into the global market, just like precious metals. If the US increases production, the OPEC nations can offset that by reducing their own. The oil companies are multinational anyway. Most of the oil used by the US comes from Canada and Mexico, anyway.
It does make sense to look ahead at oil resources and start with building some more refineries and looking at other sources. It is not as simple as sticking a sump pump in the ground and turning on the tap. It will take up to a decade for a significant amount to get into the market anyway. And it will cost well over $70 perbarrel to extract oil from shale because the price of everything associated with drilling is being bumped up by the oil inflation.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Issue: Fuel Costs - 7/1/2008 12:50:25 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6386
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
The current problem is not supply. There's plenty. Any additional oil goes into the global market, just like precious metals...
But shouldn't a glut of anything eventually cause prices to tumble? Like gold prices in the late 70s when the gold market dropped by 50% almost overnight and a lot of people lost fortunes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Issue: Fuel Costs - 7/1/2008 3:00:51 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3928
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
The current problem is not supply. There's plenty. Any additional oil goes into the global market, just like precious metals...
But shouldn't a glut of anything eventually cause prices to tumble? Like gold prices in the late 70s when the gold market dropped by 50% almost overnight and a lot of people lost fortunes.
There is not a glut and won't be because OPEC can adjust production to avoid the "glut" problem as I noted earlier. Speculators are betting there will be a shortage (and I hope they all lose their shirts and socks). You are in error about the gold prices in the late 1970's. Gold actually skyrocketed. You may be thinking about the late 1980's when gold had gradually fallen to half the peak price of a decade earlier. Gold goes up when oil goes up. Here's a chart on this link.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Issue: Fuel Costs - 7/1/2008 3:06:13 PM
|
|
|
SavedByGraceMD
Posts: 739
Joined: 2/13/2008
From: the poconos
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
quote:
ORIGINAL: wing2000
...this statement:
quote:
Between anwr and drilling off of the Florida coast which is where China and Cuba want to start drilling, we would have enough oil to stop getting it from anywhere else but right here.
an excerpt from am article written by Rebecca Hagelin, VP the Heritage Foundation(6/26/08)
"Fast forward to 2008, and it's abundantly clear that we can't leave huge deposits of energy to remain buried in our own backyard for another four years.
How huge are these deposits, you ask?
The latest estimates from the Interior Department indicate that the off-limits areas contain 19.1 billion barrels of oil and 83.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. According to Ben Lieberman, an energy expert at The Heritage Foundation, that's about 30 years' worth of imports from Saudi Arabia -- and enough natural gas to power America's homes for 17 years."
heres the link http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed062608a.cfm
add to that the million or so barrels a day from ANWR
"Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) chastised the Clinton White House in his opening comments, referring to the administration’s veto which halted legislation to drill for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The Republican’s solution hinges on increasing America’s oil supply.
“If indeed we had proceeded in ANWR at the time congress passed it,” said Bennett, “we would now be receiving from ANWR a million barrels of oil a day.” (source Ben Giles 6/27/08)
and the link to this one http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=2421
and one more
"But the mother lode is in shale rock. It's estimated that the Saudis have about 260 billion barrels under their sand. By comparison, with current technology, we can safely recover more than 800 billion barrels of the estimated 7 trillion barrels of oil in the shale rock from the Rocky Mountains. That means that current technology could give us more than three times the entire national resources of oil-rich Saudi Arabia.
Extracting oil from shale rock only recently has become economically feasible. It costs about $70 per barrel to extract and make the oil usable. When oil was $18 a barrel that would have been crazy. But at $138 a barrel, it's a bargain. And American companies can make money by supplying our nation's need, and lowering costs for all of us in the process." (source Ken Blackwell is member of NTU's Board of Directors)
link http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=1028&org_name=NTU
that is just 3, all of which I got links to from townhall.com
The current problem is not supply. There's plenty. Any additional oil goes into the global market, just like precious metals. If the US increases production, the OPEC nations can offset that by reducing their own. The oil companies are multinational anyway. Most of the oil used by the US comes from Canada and Mexico, anyway.
It does make sense to look ahead at oil resources and start with building some more refineries and looking at other sources. It is not as simple as sticking a sump pump in the ground and turning on the tap. It will take up to a decade for a significant amount to get into the market anyway. And it will cost well over $70 perbarrel to extract oil from shale because the price of everything associated with drilling is being bumped up by the oil inflation.
This is true, but my original post was about getting off of foreign oil by drilling for our own. I was asked where we had enough to do just that, so hence the sources. I didn't say that we need more because demand is low, but that we need to be independent from foreign resources.
_____________________________
Isaiah 41:10
"Fear not for I am with you,
Do not be dismayed for I am your God,
I will strengthen you and help you,
I will uphold you with my righteous right hand"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Issue: Fuel Costs - 7/1/2008 3:09:56 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6386
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
....You are in error about the gold prices in the late 1970's...
Look at your chart again. I remember well the price doubling during one period in the late 70s then plunging - the plunge may have occurred in the very early 80s, but the rise began in the late 70s. Everywhere I went, someone had a set of scales and wanted to buy whatever gold anyone had with them. I remember that I was still in the Navy and in Connecticut - and I was honorably discharged in 1980.
Historically, investing in gold is a fool's venture. Over time, the value of an ounce ofgold remains constant in purchasing power. Any spike in value will level back.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Issue: Fuel Costs - 7/1/2008 3:30:27 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3928
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
....You are in error about the gold prices in the late 1970's...
Look at your chart again. I remember well the price doubling during one period in the late 70s then plunging - the plunge may have occurred in the very early 80s, but the rise began in the late 70s. Everywhere I went, someone had a set of scales and wanted to buy whatever gold anyone had with them. I remember that I was still in the Navy and in Connecticut - and I was honorably discharged in 1980.
Historically, investing in gold is a fool's venture. Over time, the value of an ounce ofgold remains constant in purchasing power. Any spike in value will level back.
It plunged over a period of two years. Gold peaked in 1980 (oil had jumped during the Iran hostage crisis). Both oil and gold prices fell after that was resolved. You are right about the drop, just off a few years. Here's a better chart link.
Gold prices are driven by speculation, just as oil is now. Therefore, your argument has historically held for both gold and oil.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Issue: Fuel Costs - 7/9/2008 9:33:10 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1633
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
"But the mother lode is in shale rock. It's estimated that the Saudis have about 260 billion barrels under their sand. By comparison, with current technology, we can safely recover more than 800 billion barrels of the estimated 7 trillion barrels of oil in the shale rock from the Rocky Mountains. That means that current technology could give us more than three times the entire national resources of oil-rich Saudi Arabia.
Extracting oil from shale rock only recently has become economically feasible. It costs about $70 per barrel to extract and make the oil usable. When oil was $18 a barrel that would have been crazy. But at $138 a barrel, it's a bargain. And American companies can make money by supplying our nation's need, and lowering costs for all of us in the process." (source Ken Blackwell is member of NTU's Board of Directors)
link http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=1028&org_name=NTU
that is just 3, all of which I got links to from townhall.com
What they don't mention is that oil shale is usually harvested via strip-mining and that with all the energy needed to bake the rocks once they're out of the ground, it's not a particularly efficient means of acquiring energy.
Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars to explore and develop new oil fields that will take a decade or more to come on line and only postpone the inevitable, when we could divert those resources into developing new technologies that are cleaner than oil and renewable?
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Issue: Fuel Costs - 7/11/2008 10:28:45 PM
|
|
|
djv1255
Posts: 152
Joined: 8/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
What they don't mention is that oil shale is usually harvested via strip-mining and that with all the energy needed to bake the rocks once they're out of the ground, it's not a particularly efficient means of acquiring energy.
Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars to explore and develop new oil fields that will take a decade or more to come on line and only postpone the inevitable, when we could divert those resources into developing new technologies that are cleaner than oil and renewable?
-Dan.
You do NOT have to strip mine to process oil shale. Picture of in-ground oil shale processing
And a quote I heard was that a barrel of oil from in-ground oil shale processing would cost $50 a barrel.
How long will it take for the new technologies to be in our driveways and homes - 20, 30 years?
We need a solution for now.
_____________________________
Favorite Photo Blogs: US Military Doing Good Deeds
US Torture and Atrocities (the blog name is poking fun at liberals not our soldiers)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Issue: Fuel Costs - 7/12/2008 9:57:52 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1633
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: djv1255
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
What they don't mention is that oil shale is usually harvested via strip-mining and that with all the energy needed to bake the rocks once they're out of the ground, it's not a particularly efficient means of acquiring energy.
Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars to explore and develop new oil fields that will take a decade or more to come on line and only postpone the inevitable, when we could divert those resources into developing new technologies that are cleaner than oil and renewable?
-Dan.
You do NOT have to strip mine to process oil shale. Picture of in-ground oil shale processing
That process is still in its experimental stages. The picture you provided is one of an experimental Shell facility in Colorado - they won't know until 2015 if that process is even viable. Even if it is, it will require an extraordinary amount of electricity to operate and the construction of new power plants - the ratio of output energy potential (from the oil) to input energy (from the electricity) is only about 2:1.
quote:
How long will it take for the new technologies to be in our driveways and homes - 20, 30 years?
We need a solution for now.
Oil shale is not a solution for now. If political will and leadership was in place, wind power would not take 20-30 years to come on line. Hybrid cars have only been readily available since about 1999 and within 10 years, I now see more Prius' (plural - Prii?) on the road than just about any other model.
-Dan.
< Message edited by iluvatar -- 7/12/2008 10:09:34 AM >
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
Wind Power Syndrome - 7/13/2008 9:00:16 AM
|
|
|
djv1255
Posts: 152
Joined: 8/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Liberals like Ted Kennedy don't want Wind Farms in their own back yard because they are ugly and they know about wind power syndrome.
Nina Pierpont MD PhD
"Wind Turbine Syndrome is the clinical name I have given to the constellation of symptoms experienced by many (though not all) people who find themselves living near industrial wind turbines: sleep problems (insomnia), headaches, dizziness, unsteadiness, nausea, exhaustion, anxiety, anger, irritability, depression, memory loss, eye problems, problems with concentration and learning, tinnitus (ringing in the ears). As industrial windplants proliferate close to people's homes and anywhere else people regularly congregate (schools, nursing homes, places of business, etc.), Wind Turbine Syndrome likely will become an industrial plague."
Wind Power Syndrome
< Message edited by djv1255 -- 7/13/2008 10:31:17 AM >
_____________________________
Favorite Photo Blogs: US Military Doing Good Deeds
US Torture and Atrocities (the blog name is poking fun at liberals not our soldiers)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Hybrids and EMFs - 7/13/2008 1:43:26 PM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 750
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: djv1255
I would like to see the EMF "myth" on a Mythbusters show. And with the Mythbuster's love of blowing things up, I would like to see them see what would happen to a propane/natural gas powered vehicle that got a leak in a crash. Have Buster 1 in the car "trapped". Buster 2 causes a spark when rescuing Buster 1. BOOM!! 
Ha ha! Poor Buster! I'm sure he would be blown to bits on that one!
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
Hybrids and EMFs - 
