Bush to Congress: Get Going on Domestic Oil Drilling

[PosterChild]

(CNSNews.com) - "The United States has an opportunity to help increase the supply of oil on the market," thereby easing gasoline prices for hard-working Americans," President Bush said on Monday.

He reminded Congress that he has proposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Continental Shelf to domestic oil drilling -- something that would "help us through this difficult period."

Citing concerns about the environment, the Democrat-led Congress has so far refused to go along with domestic oil drilling.

"We remind our friends and allies overseas that we're all too dependent on hydrocarbons, and we must work to advance tech that help us become less dependent on hydrocarbons," Bush said on Monday as he headed out to Europe.

He said oil prices and "our nation's commitment to a strong dollar" are among the global issues he plans to discuss on a week-long visit to Europe.

The president is beginning his European trip in Solvenia, at an annual summit between the U.S. and European Union. He'll also visit Germany, Italy, France and Britain.

Press reports said Bush is expected to press America's European allies to boost their support for the war in Afghanistan -- as well as put more pressure on Iran to discourage its nuclear ambitions. The talks also will touch on humanitarian aid, the world food crisis, climate change and economic integration of both sides of the Atlantic.


Bush will meet with European leaders again next month, at the G-8 summit in Japan.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200806/NAT20080609c.html

[zrinkill]

I agree ..... we should be doing many different things.

[PosterChild]

I agree ..... we should be doing many different things.

This has no chance..it's DOA as things stand. Part of the problem is Bush himself. He should be out in font of the public in prime time (I don't mean Deion) explaining why this needs to be done and now.

The effect no one speaks of is that the moment it's announced that we will set about seriously expanding domestic production, OPEC would miraculously expand its own output (to discourage our investment, encourage us to continue buying fr them). This would result in a price drop and the futures mkt would also react with supply speculators unloading oil shares, lowering prices.

And all this can be done without destroying Alaska!

[BrAinPaiNt]

Drilling in the US is not going to drop the price to a notable difference...wait and see if it happens.

[PosterChild]

Drilling in the US is not going to drop the price to a notable difference...wait and see if it happens.

There is no compelling argument against expanded domestic production. No one is promising .97/gal but it will lower it some and stabilize it long term while alternatives are developed. It's the only sensible path..the fact that we're about 30 yrs late not withstanding.

[Dallas]

There is no compelling argument against expanded domestic production. No one is promising .97/gal but it will lower it some and stabilize it long term while alternatives are developed. It's the only sensible path..the fact that we're about 30 yrs late not withstanding.

Please ignore the resident oil expert known as Brainpaint. ;)

[BrAinPaiNt]

Please ignore the resident oil expert known as Brainpaint. ;)

It won't drop even by half. I have yet to see anyone that will even go out on a limb and say it would. I doubt it would even drop a dollar.

It is going to take years before they would be willing to take a significant drop and by then we will probably take $4 and be happy to have it as that cheap.

[Jarv]

My sources says (a local gas station guy...lol) that gas will go up to $4.50/gal and then taper off to $3.50 by the end of the Summer....We will think $3.50 is cheap after we had the taste of $4.50.

Its psychological warfare, he explained.

I'm on the side of drilling locally in the US, Nuclear power plants, clean coal and alternative sources of power. Why haven't built more refineries is also very puzzling ??

One thing about Congress, why complain about higher energy prices without a real plan on how to bring prices down ?

[Doomsday101]

My sources says (a local gas station guy...lol) that gas will go up to $4.50/gal and then taper off to $3.50 by the end of the Summer....We will think $3.50 is cheap after we had the taste of $4.50.

Its psychological warfare, he explained.

I'm on the side of drilling locally in the US, Nuclear power plants, clean coal and alternative sources of power. Why haven't built more refineries is also very puzzling ??

One thing about Congress, why complain about higher energy prices without a real plan on how to bring prices down ?

I agree with you. I'm for domestic drilling, nuclear, coal, solar, wind and any and all other sources.

[Heisenberg]

I agree with you. I'm for domestic drilling, nuclear, coal, solar, wind and any and all other sources.

I'm with you here. We should be exploring everything we can do domestically to help. I'm a bit tired of depending on middle eastern nations for oil or any other nation for that matter.

[Doomsday101]

I'm with you here. We should be exploring everything we can do domestically to help. I'm a bit tired of depending on middle eastern nations for oil or any other nation for that matter.

I am as well especially when I know we have the oil reserves here in the US. Of course I'm all for other sources as well but I don't think we will get completely away from oil and gas I think we can do things to lessen our need for it but the ideal that we will not need at all is not going to happen in my life time

[Bach]

My sources says (a local gas station guy...lol) that gas will go up to $4.50/gal and then taper off to $3.50 by the end of the Summer....We will think $3.50 is cheap after we had the taste of $4.50.

Its psychological warfare, he explained.


I believe it. That's exactly what they've been doing the last five years. Constantly take it up to higher levels, then drop it down to a previously high level and people are just relieved it actually came down some.

Every year they push a new high and then when it settles back it's higher than where it started that year. I think they pretty much know where they're going to take it months in advance. It was like clockwork watching it go above $3.00 this spring and then come to the $4.00 range right around Memorial Day. I'm sure that was the target price/date. Now we'll see it head up to $4.50 and then settle back some in the fall, but stay well above $3.00 instead of the $2.50 range of last winter.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I believe it. That's exactly what they've been doing the last five years. Constantly take it up to higher levels, then drop it down to a previously high level and people are just relieved it actually came down some.

Every year they push a new high and then when it settles back it's higher than where it started that year. I think they pretty much know where they're going to take it months in advance. It was like clockwork watching it go above $3.00 this spring and then come to the $4.00 range right around Memorial Day. I'm sure that was the target price/date. Now we'll see it head up to $4.50 and then settle back some in the fall, but stay well above $3.00 instead of the $2.50 range of last winter.

When they do raise it and drop it down, you can bet your bottom it is not going to drop a full dollar. Just as you said, they know what they are doing but it always winds up being higher than what it was when they started.

Kind of a like a store that jacks the prices up, than takes a percentage off for a sale making people thinking they are getting a deal but instead they are paying the same or more.

This type of thing was also what I was talking about in the one thread about OPEC getting together to determine how they will go about things.

[burmafrd]

If we drilled ANWAR and off the coasts of Florida and California it would indeed take years for the production to come on line. BUT that is what we NEED to do. All the other alternative sources are still many years down the line before they can make a real difference. We are going to need a lot of oil for at least the next 50 years. Its estimated that ANWAR could give us 750,000 to 1 million a day at peak production. There are all sorts of estimates at what could be found off of Florida and California, but even the lowest ones would each equal that. So We could get 3 million a day right there. That is currently one third of what we import. Think that would not have a significant impact. But of course that is only part of it. The other part that would have an IMMEDIATE impact is too have just one blend of gas in the US. Not the 17+ we have now. That prevents movement of stocks from one place to another and makes distribution all but impossible. I predict if we got that program through congress and added to it a push to add at least 10 more refineries in the next 10 years the price of oil would drop $20 a barrel right away. And if we showed we were going to do this as well as put more work in alternative fuels and such, the price would drop below 100 a barrel and stay there.

[SuspectCorner]

I'm on the side of drilling locally in the US, Nuclear power plants, clean coal and alternative sources of power. Why haven't built more refineries is also very puzzling ??



Clean coal? This is one of the most ridiculous marketing campaigns I've ever come across...



WHAT A LOAD
'Clean' Coal? Don't Try to Shovel That.
By Jeff Biggers
Sunday, March 2, 2008

Every time I hear our political leaders talk about "clean coal," I think about Burl, an irascible old coal miner in West Virginia. After 35 years underground, he struggled to conjure enough breath to match his storytelling verve, as if the iron hoops of a whiskey barrel had been strapped around his lungs. In 1983, during my first visit to Appalachia as a young man, Burl rolled up his pants and showed me the leg that had been mangled in a mining accident. The scars snaked down to his ankles.

"My grandpa barely survived an accident in the mines in southern Illinois," I told him. "He had these blue marks and bits of coal buried in his face."

"Coal tattoo," Burl wheezed. "Don't let anyone ever tell you that coal is clean."

Clean coal: Never was there an oxymoron more insidious, or more dangerous to our public health. Invoked as often by the Democratic presidential candidates as by the Republicans and by liberals and conservatives alike, this slogan has blindsided any meaningful progress toward a sustainable energy policy.


Democrats excoriated President Bush last month when he released a budget calling for more -- billions more -- in funds to reduce carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants to create "clean coal." But hardly a hoot could be heard about his proposed cuts to more practical investments in solar energy, hydrogen fuel and home energy efficiency.

Meanwhile, leading Democrats were up in arms over the Energy Department's recent decision to abandon the $1.8 billion FutureGen project in eastern Illinois, planned as the first coal-fired plant to capture and store harmful carbon dioxide emissions. Energy Department officials, unlike politicians, had to confront the spiraling costs of this fantasy.

Orwellian language has led to Orwellian politics. With the imaginary vocabulary of "clean coal," too many Democrats and Republicans, as well as a surprising number of environmentalists, have forgotten the dirty realities of extracting coal from the earth. Pummeled by warnings that global warming is triggering the apocalypse, Americans have fallen for the ruse of futuristic science that is clean coal. And in the meantime, swaths of the country are being destroyed before our eyes.

Here's the hog-killing reality that a coal miner like Burl or my grandfather knew firsthand: No matter how "cap 'n trade" schemes pan out in the distant future for coal-fired plants, strip mining and underground coal mining remain the dirtiest and most destructive ways of making energy.

Coal ain't clean. Coal is deadly.

More than 104,000 miners in America have died in coal mines since 1900. Twice as many have died from black lung disease. Dangerous pollutants, including mercury, filter into our air and water. The injuries and deaths caused by overburdened coal trucks are innumerable. Yet even on the heels of a recent report revealing that in the last six years the Mine Safety and Health Administration decided not to assess fines for more than 4,000 violations, Bush administration officials have called for cutting mine-safety funds by 6.5 percent. Have they already forgotten the coal miners who were entombed underground in Utah last summer?

Above ground, millions of acres across 36 states have been dynamited, torn and churned into bits by strip mining in the last 150 years. More than 60 percent of all coal mined in the United States today, in fact, comes from strip mines.

In the "United States of Coal," Appalachia has become the poster child for strip mining's worst depravations, which come in the form of mountaintop removal. An estimated 750,000 to 1 million acres of hardwood forests, a thousand miles of waterways and more than 470 mountains and their surrounding communities -- an area the size of Delaware -- have been erased from the southeastern mountain range in the last two decades. Thousands of tons of explosives -- the equivalent of several Hiroshima atomic bombs -- are set off in Appalachian communities every year.

How can anyone call this clean?

When the Bush administration announced a plan last year to do away with a poorly enforced 1983 regulation that protected streams from being buried by strip-mining waste -- one of the last ramparts protecting some of the nation's oldest forests and communities -- tens of thousands of people wrote to the Office of Surface Mining in outrage. Citizens' groups also effectively halted the proposed construction of 59 coal-fired plants in the past year. Yet at last weekend's meeting of the National Governors Association, Democratic and Republican governors once again joined forces, ignored the disastrous reality of mining and championed the chimera of clean coal. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell even declared that coal states will be "back in business big time."

How much more death and destruction will it take to strip coal of this bright, shining "clean" lie?

As Burl might have said, if our country can rally to save Arctic polar bears from global warming, perhaps Congress can pass the Endangered Appalachians Act to save American miners, their children and their communities from ruin by a reckless industry.

Or at least stop talking about "clean coal."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.html

[Doomsday101]

Clean burning coal, no one said working in a coal mine was a safe job. I'm sure if you look at any form of energy you will find people (tree huggers) moaning and groaning. They need to do their part stop using energy, move into a cave and leave the rest of us alone.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Clean burning coal, no one said working in a coal mine was a safe job. I'm sure if you look at any form of energy you will find people (tree huggers) moaning and groaning. They need to do their part stop using energy, move into a cave and leave the rest of us alone.

I have seen reports that are pro clean coal and anti clean coal. Do not know which is true or if both have valid points.

If you have ever been in a coal mine, it is kind of hard to fathom the idea of the word clean in conjunction with the word coal. But as I said I don't know enough about the process they take.

However if it were the case that it was a good method and they pursued it, it would be good for my state.:D

[Doomsday101]

I have seen reports that are pro clean coal and anti clean coal. Do not know which is true or if both have valid points.

If you have ever been in a coal mine, it is kind of hard to fathom the idea of the word clean in conjunction with the word coal. But as I said I don't know enough about the process they take.

However if it were the case that it was a good method and they pursued it, it would be good for my state.:D

Both are true. There is a process used for creating clean burning coal.

Coal is one of the world’s fastest growing energy sources. It fuels almost 40% of electricity worldwide, with even higher percentages in several countries. However, coal is also the most unclean energy source in the world. Upon burning, coal releases a number of problem pollutants such as mercury, sulfur, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide. These pollutants are not only harmful to breathe in, but are also avid greenhouse gases and contribute significantly to global warming.

Clean Coal Technologies (CCTs) are defined as ‘technologies that enhance both the efficiency and the environmental acceptability of coal extraction, preparation and use’. CCTs reduce emissions and waste, and increase the amount of energy gained from each ton of coal. CCTs can reduce greenhouse emissions from any industrial or mining process involving coal, but the international priority is reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-based electricity generation. There are two basic strategies to achieve this:

• Increasing the efficiency of electricity generation plants (a one percent improvement in thermal efficiency can yield two to three percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions). This approach will not work in isolation because a short-term reduction in emissions will be counteracted by the increasing demand for electricity;

• Capturing emissions and storing them underground (sequestration). This strategy is the most important in terms of achieving large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from coal-based power generation. Sequestration is supported by coal gasification technologies, which can deliver a relatively pure stream of carbon dioxide, lending itself to capture and storage.

Clean Coal Technologies - the products of research and development conducted over the past 20 years - have resulted in more than twenty new, lower-cost, more efficient and environmentally compatible technologies for electric utilities, steel mills, cement plants and other industries.

Looking at the growing popularity of these technologies and of this industry, Energy Business Report presents an in-depth analysis of all the various technologies involved in cleaning coal and protecting the environment. This report on Clean Coal Technologies analyzes upcoming and present day technologies such as gasification, combustion, and others. This report looks at the various technological aspects, economic aspects, and the various programs involved in promoting these emerging green technologies.

[ConcordCowboy]

I have seen reports that are pro clean coal and anti clean coal. Do not know which is true or if both have valid points.

If you have ever been in a coal mine, it is kind of hard to fathom the idea of the word clean in conjunction with the word coal. But as I said I don't know enough about the process they take.

However if it were the case that it was a good method and they pursued it, it would be good for my state.:D

I've seen articles and news reports that supposedly you can have "Clean Coal"
but the cost to do it is prohibitive at this point.

[burmafrd]

Prohibitive when compared to $140 a barrel oil?

[silverbear]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3] (CNSNews.com) - "The United States has an opportunity to help increase the supply of oil on the market," thereby easing gasoline prices for hard-working Americans," President Bush said on Monday.

You'd think by now, Dubya would have figured out that he's completely irrelevant... lame ducks should be seen, and not heard...

[silverbear]

If we drilled ANWAR and off the coasts of Florida and California it would indeed take years for the production to come on line. BUT that is what we NEED to do.

Why?? So ExxonMobil can make more of a profit selling Alaskan oil in Japan??

Pass a bill REQUIRING that oil taken from the ANWR must be sold in US markets, and this native Alaskan would support drilling there... but the plain truth is, as things stand now, oil that flows through the Alyeska pipeline is freighted down to Seattle, where it is loaded onto supertankers bound for Japan...

Excuse me if I don't feel like squandering American resources on the Japanese market...

Rather than drilling in these places, what we REALLY need to do is increase our REFINING capacity...

[masomenos]

"Oil reserves in the Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would have a minor impact on the price of crude oil, a government report said.

The U.S. Department of Energy said reserves from the area, if harvested, would drop the price of crude oil -- currently at $131 per barrel -- by about 75 cents per barrel."




http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2008/05/23/ANWR_oil_would_have_small_price_impact/UPI-85741211578264/


"But the report also finds that opening ANWR could have other benefits, particularly in Alaska, where tapping the resources in the Arctic refuge could extend the lifespan of the trans-Alaska pipeline. It estimates that if Congress agreed to open ANWR this year, Alaskan oil could hit the market in about 10 years."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/38223.html


75 cents per barrel from Alaska, in 10 years. Not worth it. No domestic drilling would lower the cost back below $100. Factor in inflation over 10 years at 3% and that 75 cent per barrel decrease is closer to a 35 cent decrease.

Because OPEC controls so much of the worlds oil they also control the prices. 9 years after OPEC was established is the first time gas prices began to rise substantially, eventually hitting around $90 (adjusted to match inflation) a barrel in 1981. The rise in gas prices lasted 12 years and leveled off in 1986 at near $25 a barrel, around 75% lower than the peak but still 25% higher than the cost before 1974.

Gas prices began to rise again around 1998, meaning we're 10 years into the current increase. In 1998 gas prices had dropped back to $20 a barrel (the same amount that gas was at before the first increases). Since then prices have increased to around $133 per barrel. Oil prices will peak soon and begin to drop, most likely in the next 5 years and by 2015 we will have oil below $100 a barrel again.

The OPEC countries realize their economies are tied to oil and they also realize that it won't last forever. By having these price spikes they are able to maximize profits while they still can, they drop the prices after a decade of increases or so in order to stave off calls for alternative energy research as people reflood the market when the oil prices fall. Why spend money on research if that money can just go towards purchasing oil that, for the first time in 15 years is cheap again? We will then have another decade or so at steady prices and the OPEC cartel will increase costs again. It's a cycle and we're near the end of our increase.

[burmafrd]

ANWAR is not the answer in itself. BUT coupled with drilling in the Gulf, off of Florida and California, dropping all those stupid blends for one, building more refineries, all together that WOULD make a big difference.

[masomenos]

ANWAR is not the answer in itself. BUT coupled with drilling in the Gulf, off of Florida and California, dropping all those stupid blends for one, building more refineries, all together that WOULD make a big difference.

It would also take a decade to reach peak production levels. Even then, say we're able to lower our cost per barrel by exporting less oil and depending more on domestic drilling. OPEC still largely controls oil prices and there would be nothing to stop them from raising prices to make up for the lower number of exports. Because world oil is mostly controlled by a cartel than means their good (oil) doesn't follow the laws of supply and demand.

Would drilling decrease our dependency on foreign oil? Slightly, yeah. But that doesn't mean it would do anything to the cost and it wouldn't do anything to prepare us for the future. We need to being building an infrastructure of alternative energy sources and if we do start drilling then we need to keep a large amount of the output in our national oil reserves. We need to being preparing ourselves for a true oil crisis in the next 50 or 100 years. In the past week OPEC has come out and said there is no shortage of oil at the moment, that has nothing to do with the prices of oil right now and we're at 133 dollars a barrel. Can you imagine if there WERE an oil shortage? $200+ easily, probably $8 at the pump.

Drilling would give us negligible relief in the short term and should be priority #2 behind setting up alternative energy infrastructures. While drilling may take a decade to start seeing relief, alternative energy will take even longer, that's why it needs to be focussed on first. First, lower our need for oil then start drilling our own reserves two decades before real estimated oil shortages begin. Over that time we will have dramatically reduced our demand for oil and our dependency on foreign oil to fuel what demand we do have.

No solution is going to lower gas prices significantly for years to come so we have to shift our focus and look at the long term.

[burmafrd]

Slightly? How about 30-40%. We WILL need that oil for at least the next 20-30 years minimum. So either we get it at home or we buy it abroad. That is what is so stupid about the no drilling BS. WE ARE GOING TO NEED THE OIL NO MATTER WHAT.

[masomenos]

Slightly? How about 30-40%. We WILL need that oil for at least the next 20-30 years minimum. So either we get it at home or we buy it abroad. That is what is so stupid about the no drilling BS. WE ARE GOING TO NEED THE OIL NO MATTER WHAT.

As of 2005 we were producing 7.61 million barrels of oil per day. ANWR would boost that to 8.5 million barrels. Offshore drilling of the OCS would give you 2.4 million barrels, putting domestic oil production at around 11 million barrels a day sometime around 2030.

The most recent estimates have us consuming 20.7 million barrels of oil per day. That means right now we produce somewhere in the neighborhood of 36% of the oil we consume. If our rate of oil consumption remained constant until 2030 then we'd be producing 53% of our oil. That's a 17% net increase in oil production. But, looking at the 20 year span from 1985-2005 the US saw an increase in consumption of 5 million barrels per day.

If you take a conservative estimate and say that our oil consumption will increase at half that rate, 2.5 million barrels more per day by 2030 then you're looking at us consuming 23.2 million barrels a day. With the 11 million barrel peak production rate you're looking at a domestic production rate of 47%, or 11% net increased production.

That means oil imports drop from 64% to 53%. There's no way you get a 30-40% reduced dependency.

[Dallas]

As of 2005 we were producing 7.61 million barrels of oil per day. ANWR would boost that to 8.5 million barrels. Offshore drilling of the OCS would give you 2.4 million barrels, putting domestic oil production at around 11 million barrels a day sometime around 2030.

The most recent estimates have us consuming 20.7 million barrels of oil per day. That means right now we produce somewhere in the neighborhood of 36% of the oil we consume. If our rate of oil consumption remained constant until 2030 then we'd be producing 53% of our oil. That's a 17% net increase in oil production. But, looking at the 20 year span from 1985-2005 the US saw an increase in consumption of 5 million barrels per day.

If you take a conservative estimate and say that our oil consumption will increase at half that rate, 2.5 million barrels more per day by 2030 then you're looking at us consuming 23.2 million barrels a day. With the 11 million barrel peak production rate you're looking at a domestic production rate of 47%, or 11% net increased production.

That means oil imports drop from 64% to 53%. There's no way you get a 30-40% reduced dependency.

Haha! It really is kind of funny seeing you spin your ecoconservation this way.

Way off - but good try.

[windward]

There is no compelling argument against expanded domestic production. No one is promising .97/gal but it will lower it some and stabilize it long term while alternatives are developed. It's the only sensible path..the fact that we're about 30 yrs late not withstanding.
:hammer:

[burmafrd]

Of course some spin it that way by using the lowest possible numbers for new drilling production. BUT if you look at the facts of history the lowest possible numbers never have been right. But have it your way if it makes you fell better.

[Cajuncowboy]

Why?? So ExxonMobil can make more of a profit selling Alaskan oil in Japan??

Pass a bill REQUIRING that oil taken from the ANWR must be sold in US markets, and this native Alaskan would support drilling there... but the plain truth is, as things stand now, oil that flows through the Alyeska pipeline is freighted down to Seattle, where it is loaded onto supertankers bound for Japan...

Excuse me if I don't feel like squandering American resources on the Japanese market...

Rather than drilling in these places, what we REALLY need to do is increase our REFINING capacity...

With that last statement I agree. Which is why we are forced to send it to Japan which they in turn sell back to us.

Why is that? Because the left forced the oil companies to stop building refineries here.

Thank you very much.

[windward]

With that last statement I agree. Which is why we are forced to send it to Japan which they in turn sell back to us.

Why is that? Because the left forced the oil companies to stop building refineries here.

Thank you very much.
yep. no reason we can't do both.

[Cajuncowboy]

yep. no reason we can't do both.

Really! It's not that freakin' hard to figure out.

Drill, refine, repeat.

Problem abated.

[masomenos]

Haha! It really is kind of funny seeing you spin your ecoconservation this way.

Way off - but good try.

Hmm if you read my other posts you'd see I supported drilling offshore. Know a lot of ecoconservatives who support offshore drilling? My "spin" comes from the numbers provided by the International Energy Agency which was created by Congress in 1977 as a statistics body for the department of energy.

Ouch. Way off - but good try.

[masomenos]

Of course some spin it that way by using the lowest possible numbers for new drilling production. BUT if you look at the facts of history the lowest possible numbers never have been right. But have it your way if it makes you fell better.

Those people who "spin" it that way are the people who work at the EIA, the statistics branch of the U.S. Department of Energy. It just so happens that the lowest projection from the EIA is 100,000 barrels less per day than the figure I posted. The 870,000 I focused on was their "mean case scenario" for ANWR.

Feel free to bring up a table of the history of lowest production scenarios vs actual production. Or you can just have it your way and throw out empty statements.

[burmafrd]

Look at the original predictions from the US government on Prudhoe Bay. They were low.
The original predictions for the North Sea were VERY low.

The predictions for the amount we could get out of the Gulf of Mexico were LOW.

I could go on but why bother. AND I love it that suddenly the government agency is telling the truth to you. And after all the times you claim the government has lied.

[Doomsday101]

Those people who "spin" it that way are the people who work at the EIA, the statistics branch of the U.S. Department of Energy. It just so happens that the lowest projection from the EIA is 100,000 barrels less per day than the figure I posted. The 870,000 I focused on was their "mean case scenario" for ANWR.

Feel free to bring up a table of the history of lowest production scenarios vs actual production. Or you can just have it your way and throw out empty statements.

National Geological survey disagrees with how much oil is in the region and until they actually drill no one will know for sure they can only estimate.

[masomenos]

You made a blanket statement and said that historically field production was never at or below the lowest estimations...

Oil field size predictions are made with the assumption of current technology through the life of the field. Three estimations are then made of how much oil can be pulled from the field, a 90-95% certainty prediction, a 5-10% certainty prediction and a mean prediction based on the other two. The 90-95% prediction always represents the low end production and because the estimation is made with such a low possible fail rate that does mean that very few oil fields fail to meet the low end estimates. However, because there is uncertainty in hydrocarbon exploration roughly 5-10% of oil fields do fail to meet the low end estimations.

5-10% are expected to fail, not 0%.

In reality, due to technology advances the fail rate is about half of that, historically between 3-5%. Not 0%. But that's using low end predictions, using the mean predictions yields to a higher fail rate in accurate predictions.

A lot of oil fields do outproduce even their mean predictions largely because of increases in technology allow for new new certainty predictions to be made, however you can't calculate in the rate at which oil prospecting technology will advance nor the impact it will have in a field. The original Prudhoe predictions were made in 1974 and they were correct with the assumption of 1974 technology. Similar advances could be made that would allow ANWR to reach it's high end production rates and you would see an increase of around 100-200 thousand barrels a day.

Please, quote me on all the times I've said the government has lied about something.

[masomenos]

National Geological survey disagrees with how much oil is in the region and until they actually drill no one will know for sure they can only estimate.

You're right, no one knows until the drills are in the ground, but they go off of certainty predictions.

[Doomsday101]

You're right, no one knows until the drills are in the ground, but they go off of certainty predictions.

And those predictions have varied greatly depending on whose point of view you’re getting it from National Geological survey has indicated that there is more in the ANWAR region than the estimates you were giving. Add to that when people are talking domestic drilling many of us are not talking about ANWAR alone but many areas that have been restricted

[masomenos]

And those predictions have varied greatly depending on whose point of view you’re getting it from National Geological survey has indicated that there is more in the ANWAR region than the estimates you were giving. Add to that when people are talking domestic drilling many of us are not talking about ANWAR alone but many areas that have been restricted

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/analysisdiscussion.html

That's a link to the 1998 USGS survey of the area. They estimated, using the mean probability, that 1 million barrels per day could be produced assuming there was enough oil to pump out 400 million barrels a year for a productive life span of 65 years. At 600 million barrels a year, using the same variables, they predicted 1.35 million barrels per day could be produced. Both of those numbers are at peak production rates somewhere around 25 years down the road. Both of those numbers also include drilling the entire north Alaskan coastal plain, not just the ANWR 1002 that the IEA report was predicting, that's why there's the variation.

And I understand that people aren't just talking ANWR when they talk about domestic drilling but that seems to be the most "hot button" area so thats why I initially brought up those numbers. People just seem to think that domestic drilling would provide relief to our oil problems right now, or even in the next decade, and they wouldn't.

I'm not against domestic drilling, especially off the coast. But if the goal of drilling is to reduce our dependency on foreign oil then we should also pursue the development and infrastructure design of alternative energy sources in that 25 year time span it will take for production to peak in domestic drilling. Not all of the oil should be released for public consumption and none (or very little) of it should be shipped overseas to provide higher profit margins for oil companies. The government can give them tax breaks on the revenue for domestic drilling to make up for loss in profit or they can establish export limits depending on how much the oil companies also invest in alternative energy. The oil not released for public consumption would be sold to the government and used to stock our reserves in case we ever come to a real energy crisis.

That's all I'm saying.

[Jarv]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/analysisdiscussion.html

That's a link to the 1998 USGS survey of the area. They estimated, using the mean probability, that 1 million barrels per day could be produced assuming there was enough oil to pump out 400 million barrels a year for a productive life span of 65 years. At 600 million barrels a year, using the same variables, they predicted 1.35 million barrels per day could be produced. Both of those numbers are at peak production rates somewhere around 25 years down the road. Both of those numbers also include drilling the entire north Alaskan coastal plain, not just the ANWR 1002 that the IEA report was predicting, that's why there's the variation.

And I understand that people aren't just talking ANWR when they talk about domestic drilling but that seems to be the most "hot button" area so thats why I initially brought up those numbers. People just seem to think that domestic drilling would provide relief to our oil problems right now, or even in the next decade, and they wouldn't.

I'm not against domestic drilling, especially off the coast. But if the goal of drilling is to reduce our dependency on foreign oil then we should also pursue the development and infrastructure design of alternative energy sources in that 25 year time span it will take for production to peak in domestic drilling. Not all of the oil should be released for public consumption and none (or very little) of it should be shipped overseas to provide higher profit margins for oil companies. The government can give them tax breaks on the revenue for domestic drilling to make up for loss in profit or they can establish export limits depending on how much the oil companies also invest in alternative energy. The oil not released for public consumption would be sold to the government and used to stock our reserves in case we ever come to a real energy crisis.

That's all I'm saying.

Great post, I agree with all, not just the bold part. I never thought that domestic oil should even be exported.