Oil Speculation

[HoustonRaven]

It doesnt happen often, but I have to tip my hat to the Dems on this one. Dick Morris makes some great points and the GOP is partially dropping the ball.

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/...-now/#more-382

Yes, we need to reign in the speculators. But we still NEED to drill also!

I take a different approach to this debate then most on my side of the aisle. Our military MUST have oil if we're going to be able to properly defend ourselves. Our planes, helicopters, ground transportation, certain kids of boats ALL need oil products to move. To rely on a steady stream of foreign oil as a means to fuel our military is downright suicide. Our men and women in the service are owed every fighting chance!

[Greg]

Speculators are investors. They are helping to push the price up but if you want to crush speculators just announce we will start drilling. Oil dropped $10 a barrel just on Bush saying the Administrative ban on offshore drilling is being lifted. If Congress lifted its ban the price would plummet and the "speculators" would be crushed holding contracts for tens of dollars per barrel more than the new price.

[HoustonRaven]

Greg,

Agreed. And not so surprising, a new by-partisan study was just released about ANWAR again -- 10.2 Billion Barrels are in the ground up there. That's about 150-200 years worth of oil. And the footprint will only be 6 acres.

Thats 150-200 years of oil, fueling our military and the citizens.

I am 100% for conservation but to ignore what impact this find will do for our overall security -- both financial and political -- is a kin to committing national suicide.

[Galen Sevinne]

Greg,

Agreed. And not so surprising, a new by-partisan study was just released about ANWAR again -- 10.2 Billion Barrels are in the ground up there. That's about 150-200 years worth of oil. And the footprint will only be 6 acres.

Thats 150-200 years of oil, fueling our military and the citizens.

I am 100% for conservation but to ignore what impact this find will do for our overall security -- both financial and political -- is a kin to committing national suicide.

Yeah...we need our SUV's back and to fuel the war machine baby!

WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.

Boy! that's really worth investing in instead of research dollars and time going towards renewable resources.

"I am 100% for conservation"

Really? 100%???

[HoustonRaven]

Galen .... source?

And yes, I am 100% for conservation. Take your head out of those liberal blog sites and bone up on your history of conservatism. Conservatives have a long track record of being champions of conservation.

If you want our men and women to suffer because you oppose drilling, thats on you. To have a military so dependant on foreign oil is downright shameful. I know .. maybe we can have a hybrid Hum-V! Or an Apache helicopter that flies on ethanol. Better yet, lets scrap those nuke subs we have and instead let them run on solar power.

It wasnt until recently when the Algor types got a hold of the Sierra Club and hijacked it that it became simply a voice for getting peeps on your side elected.

[jonboy79]

Yeah...we need our SUV's back and to fuel the war machine baby!

WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.

Boy! that's really worth investing in instead of research dollars and time going towards renewable resources.


Really? 100%???

That umber is bogus, the mere metion of possibly dumping the ban on offshore drilling cut the price of a barrell of a crude by $20 in 3 days. Hw wuld ading 900k brrells a day and reducig our dependence o foreign oil by a third only cut 50 cents?


Why does it have to be either or? How about both? Anwar increases american jobs, and decreases the outward flow of cash, that's a good thing. That should allow us to continue to invest in other forms of energy as well.

[Galen Sevinne]

Galen .... source?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/results.html

more specifically: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer...s_summary.html

Of course you are going to have to read something written on more than an 8th grade op-ed piece. its all there though if you take the time.

This study has been around for several years. Drilling in ANWAR will have little to no impact on importation of oil...especially in 10 years when it will be available with the way we use oil today.

We have to be careful as people not to be so reactionary. The trendy movement now to drill is because are paying 4 bucks a gallon. No one cared when gas was $2. There are better solutions but as americans we tend to be needy, impulsive and quick-fix oriented. The truth is drilling in ANWAR is far from a quick fix. By the time oil is up and flowing, we will be worried about something completely different.

This is no different than the lead up to the war in Iraq. Those who thought about it saw that there was no connection nor reason...those who bought into the Goebbels-like nationalistic propaganda followed Dubious right into war. Now the argument is, "hey we are paying $4 a gallon???" "Lets drill...sounds easy enough". Its so easy to fall for that argument.

Progressive thought takes you out of same old stale way of thinking.

Take your head out of those liberal blog sites and bone up on your history of conservatism. Conservatives have a long track record of being champions of conservation.

Champions..really? Maybe in the 40's and 50's when the class structure of our nation was tighter. Conservatism today is nothing more than greed and indignation. If you think there is a place for conservation in today's conservatism, I question your understanding of conservatism.

If you want our men and women to suffer because you oppose drilling, thats on you.

Nice...you did connect it to the war. How did I see that coming? Yeah, I guess I am not a patriot huh? I am long over those types of Sean Hannity-level arguments. "If you don't drill for oil...you are not a patriot!" Wow, man. By the time that oil is flowing from ANWAR, we will be long out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Truly if you think I am going to buy into that crap.

[Galen Sevinne]

Why does it have to be either or? How about both? Anwar increases american jobs, and decreases the outward flow of cash, that's a good thing. That should allow us to continue to invest in other forms of energy as well.

I agree with this but drilling allows us to defer the need for alternative solutions for another 10-20 years. We need to be putting more money into alternative solutions that carbon solutions and that won't happen if people are lead to believe that drilling will solve all problems. HR says drilling in ANWAR will provide oil for 200 years:

"10.2 Billion Barrels are in the ground up there. That's about 150-200 years worth of oil. "

In April 2008 we were importing about 10 million barrels a day.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pe...0_mbblpd_a.htm

There are at best estimates about 10 billion barrels in Anwar. Do the math. If we stop importing completely, there would be enough oil for about 2 years from the ANWAR fields.

How is that really going to help? It's propaganda opening oil fields for big money. Bush's term is about over....Obama will not support the drilling. You will see a racheting up of the conservative argument until the next elections. Conservative politics are fueled (pardon the pun) by big money and there is no bigger money than oil.

I am really not completely against drilling if it is in conjunction with serious efforts at conservation and alternative solutions. We have to be savy consumers of politics though and not so easily fall for what the easy solution seems.

[Galen Sevinne]

How about shale drilling - like 800M barrels of shale oil?


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...y/5885419.html

There's enough shale along the Rockies to give us complete independence from foreign oil and it's still a tough sell.

DEMs recently voted down shale drilling in Colorado. It was defeated by 1 vote and vote was strictly on party lines. One Dem wanted to vote for it but was told better not or else.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/dem...ado_oil_shale/

I just talked to a geologist today at the pool, a guy from work who's a geologist. He's been out there on TDY many times and says you can see the black shale rocks driving down Rt 70, just laying on the ground. Those are oil stains.

There's an air force base out there that alone has 25 miles of shales and of course it's gov't owned but the Dems won't let us drill. Several tons of these rocks = millions of barrels of oil pr day.

Shale is an interesting proposition but there are reasons more than one democratic vote as to why nothing is happening with it. I think they say there are about the equivalency of 1.5 trillion barrels in shale. It is not easy to turn to oil though. I did a report on it in college.

We tried in the 70's but it wasn't economical enough to produce. You basically have to dig it up...truck it to a plant where it is dusted...cooked...extracted and then you have to get rid of the waste which is basically arsenic. In the 70's there wasn't a technology available to make it cost-effective so they quit.

There is new technology that basically processes the shale in the ground but the process involves heating the shale to crazy temperatures like 800 degrees for a period of five years which then more or less creates a usable product. If you can begin to imagine the amount of energy it would take to heat a sizable area of shale to 800 degrees for 5 years, you can imagine the amount of energy needed to create this energy. Essentially what they are doing is condensing 100 billion years of process into 4-5 years that naturally turns shale to oil.

The amount of pollution, the greenhouse gases released and damage to the underground water systems is immense and you realistically might get 100,000 barrels a day for that cost. We import 10 million barrels a day. You have to ask yourself, is this worth it and the best way to deal with our energy problem? I don't think so.

[Greg]

The sands in the Rockies have enough oil to run this country for 200 years (that 1.5 trillion barrels is recoverable NOW with current technology, which could be improved), the OCS has enough natural gas (not counting the oil) to meet our electrical and heating needs for decades. We have enough coal to produce more power than the fossil fuels in the rest of the world.

If we built nukes and coal for electricity and used the natural gas for heating and the oil for transportation we could take care of our own needs for 200+ years easy while we found alternatives.

And the only reason it would take more than 24 months to bring any of these save the nuclear plants online is the permitting processes the Democrats have put in place. The nuke plants are also hindered by that but 3-4 years is more realistic to build the plant and get it up and running.

If the Democrats would get out of the way we could be independent and have reasonably priced energy within 10 years, 15 tops.

Just get out of the way.

[Galen Sevinne]

[QUOTE=TRAP;86495

Our economy, the way we live, people living in split level homes and the soccer moms driving their SUVs around all day depend on that system.

Something tells me the DEMs will never leave it alone and this system will take the country under, instead of doing what Greg said.

I always thought the great tribulation would take care of the country, in which case I wouldn't be here, but right now it looks like oil and the dollar are destroying it. I fear for my nephews and nieces.[/QUOTE]

May I suggest the real problem has a lot to do with greed and ego? Lets say we microwave all the shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming or lets drill all over the u.s. for whatever there is. In the best case scenario we begin to feel a difference in 5 years but more likely 10 years.

Within the same 10 years we all will probably need to replace our cars, right? The avg. mpg is maybe 20mpg?...I don't know exactly but give or take a couple. There are cars that now get 35...40...50 mpg. What if we put our shallow egos to the side and stopped driving behemoth Escalades, hummers and any rediculously large vehicle and any performance vehicles like V6's. V8's which do just as poor as the SUV's? We could easily double the avg. mpg in the 10 year period...double it! Imagine what that would do for the supply/demand ratio for oil?

I have put a deposit down on a 2009 Jetti TDI "clean diesel". These cars are consistently getting in the mid 40's for mpg. Yes, there is a premium on diesel fuel at the moment but it is still at 23k the best car out there as far as mileage without paying a hybrid premium and has the cleanest emissions available.

Why do we need 2000+ sq. foot homes? Smaller homes with solar panel assistance would also do wonders for oil supply/demand ratios. And don't think solar is some crazy idea. I spent weeks in Nicaragua this summer (2nd poorest country in the w. hemisphere) under solar panel electricity most of the time. It works.

We need to get beyond the idea of defining who we are by the crate of metal we move through our world in and the box of sticks we rest our heads within.

Oil supply is the symptom...greed and shallow egos are the disease. By drilling for more oil, you are just blowing the runny nose...the cold still exists.

[Greg]

May I suggest the real problem has a lot to do with greed and ego? Lets say we microwave all the shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming or lets drill all over the u.s. for whatever there is. In the best case scenario we begin to feel a difference in 5 years but more likely 10 years.

Within the same 10 years we all will probably need to replace our cars, right? The avg. mpg is maybe 20mpg?...I don't know exactly but give or take a couple. There are cars that now get 35...40...50 mpg. What if we put our shallow egos to the side and stopped driving behemoth Escalades, hummers and any rediculously large vehicle and any performance vehicles like V6's. V8's which do just as poor as the SUV's? We could easily double the avg. mpg in the 10 year period...double it! Imagine what that would do for the supply/demand ratio for oil?

I have put a deposit down on a 2009 Jetti TDI "clean diesel". These cars are consistently getting in the mid 40's for mpg. Yes, there is a premium on diesel fuel at the moment but it is still at 23k the best car out there as far as mileage without paying a hybrid premium and has the cleanest emissions available.

Why do we need 2000+ sq. foot homes? Smaller homes with solar panel assistance would also do wonders for oil supply/demand ratios. And don't think solar is some crazy idea. I spent weeks in Nicaragua this summer (2nd poorest country in the w. hemisphere) under solar panel electricity most of the time. It works.

We need to get beyond the idea of defining who we are by the crate of metal we move through our world in and the box of sticks we rest our heads within.

Oil supply is the symptom...greed and shallow egos are the disease. By drilling for more oil, you are just blowing the runny nose...the cold still exists.

And here it is. While each previous generation of Americans wanted their children to increase the standard of living, liberals want us all to scale back to minimalism.

They don't say it out-right, but read the take. Smaller cars, smaller houses, less energy, just do with less.

WHY? We don't have to. We have enough energy in our own resources to keep us going for decades and decades.

I want my children to have more than I have. Not less.