• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Huge oil find in the Gulf of Mexico.

techs

Lifer
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060905/major_oil_discovery.html?.v=15

Successful Test Well in Gulf of Mexico Means U.S. Oil Reserves Could Grow More Than 50 Percent

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. oil and gas reserves could grow by more than 50 percent as three companies said Tuesday that results from a deep-water exploratory drilling project in the Gulf of Mexico indicate a significant oil discovery.

Chevron Corp. estimated the 300-square-mile region where its test well sits could hold between 3 billion and 15 billion barrels of oil and natural gas liquids. Analysts are calling it the most significant domestic discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay more than a generation ago.

The proximity of the Gulf of Mexico to the world's largest oil consuming nation makes it especially attractive. And it could bring pressure on Florida and other states to relax limits they have placed on drilling in their offshore waters for environmental and tourism reasons.

Chevron's well, called "Jack 2," was drilled about 5.3 miles below sea level. Chevron has a 50 percent stake in the field, while partners Statoil ASA of Norway and Devon Energy Corp. of Oklahoma City own 25 percent each.

During the test, the Jack 2 well sustained a flow rate of more than 6,000 barrels of oil per day, but analysts and executives believe the payoff could be much larger than that.

The financial implications of the prospect are most significant for independent oil and gas producer Devon, which is the smallest of the three partners. Devon's shares soared more than 10 percent on the New York Stock Exchange.

"This could not have happened in a better place," Devon CEO Larry Nichols said in a conference call with analysts.

The successful test well does not mean a huge supply of cheap oil will hit the market anytime soon.

Oppenheimer & Co. analyst Fadel Gheit estimated that the first production for the Chevron-led partnership might not come on line until after 2010, depending on how many more test wells the companies drill. That said, many companies, including BP PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Anadarko Petroleum Corp., stand to benefit from their own projects in the so-called lower tertiary, a rock formation that is 24 million to 65 million years old.

"They may be the first ones to hit the jackpot, but if the current thinking is correct, this is only a beginning," Gheit said.

The well was drilled in the Walker Ridge area of the Gulf, about 270 miles southwest of New Orleans and 175 miles off the coast. It followed up a discovery made by Chevron in 2004.

San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron said the well set a variety of records, including the deepest well successfully tested in the Gulf of Mexico. Chevron said the well was drilled more than 20,000 feet under the sea floor below 7,000 feet of water for a total depth of 28,175 feet.



Hopefully this will put an end to the ANWR issue.
 
Originally posted by: feralkid
ANWR's not about oil. It is about fast bucks.
Which means ANWR's not about anything other than political posturing. The reserves in ANWR are relatively small and at least ten years off if they started drilling, today.

If they prove out, hopefully, as part of tapping these oil reserves, we will heed the lessons of the need for ecological safety in the drilling and pumping processes and the need to use the new supply to cover our asses while continuing to reduce our depency on fossil fuels.
 
Why is this country still trying to drill its way around the problem? Why are we not pursuing alternative forms of energy with a vengeance? Why are we living in the past when this is the 21st century? Shouldn't we be trying to move our energy to this century as well? Yep the current administration must be happy that even more oil will be available so they don't have to try to develop alternatives to petrolium.
 
Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
Why is this country still trying to drill its way around the problem? Why are we not pursuing alternative forms of energy with a vengeance? Why are we living in the past when this is the 21st century? Shouldn't we be trying to move our energy to this century as well? Yep the current administration must be happy that even more oil will be available so they don't have to try to develop alternatives to petrolium.
how do you know "the current administration" is not trying to develop alternatives?

 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
bahahahahaha some bloke in OT actually believes this will lower prices :laugh:
some bloke in OT actually thinks the recent price drop in gas at the pumps only happened in low income areas. 😛

 
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
Why is this country still trying to drill its way around the problem? Why are we not pursuing alternative forms of energy with a vengeance? Why are we living in the past when this is the 21st century? Shouldn't we be trying to move our energy to this century as well? Yep the current administration must be happy that even more oil will be available so they don't have to try to develop alternatives to petrolium.
how do you know "the current administration" is not trying to develop alternatives?

Oh.. they are .. that $15,000,000,000 tax break Bush gave the oil industry (while he took the same amount away from student loan funding) is so the oil industry can research more alternative fuels and then charge us full price for them after we gave them $15,000,000,000 to research it

 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: feralkid
ANWR's not about oil. It is about fast bucks.
Which means ANWR's not about anything other than political posturing. The reserves in ANWR are relatively small and at least ten years off if they started drilling, today.

If they prove out, hopefully, as part of tapping these oil reserves, we will heed the lessons of the need for ecological safety in the drilling and pumping processes and the need to use the new supply to cover our asses while continuing to reduce our depency on fossil fuels.

Yes, lets not tap our own resources, lets continue to import more and more.
I bet you were one of the genius's 35 years ago when we had the oil crunch of the 1970's who sent us in the direction to nearly double our oil imports as a %.
 
Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
Why is this country still trying to drill its way around the problem? Why are we not pursuing alternative forms of energy with a vengeance? Why are we living in the past when this is the 21st century? Shouldn't we be trying to move our energy to this century as well? Yep the current administration must be happy that even more oil will be available so they don't have to try to develop alternatives to petrolium.

Because right now alternative forms of energy cost more than the oil we are drilling and will be for the near future.

 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
Why is this country still trying to drill its way around the problem? Why are we not pursuing alternative forms of energy with a vengeance? Why are we living in the past when this is the 21st century? Shouldn't we be trying to move our energy to this century as well? Yep the current administration must be happy that even more oil will be available so they don't have to try to develop alternatives to petrolium.
how do you know "the current administration" is not trying to develop alternatives?

Oh.. they are .. that $15,000,000,000 tax break Bush gave the oil industry (while he took the same amount away from student loan funding) is so the oil industry can research more alternative fuels and then charge us full price for them after we gave them $15,000,000,000 to research it

documentation please? Normally i would take your word but you know how people are in P&N! Would be nice to see some ducumentation backing up your opinion... 😀
 
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
Why is this country still trying to drill its way around the problem? Why are we not pursuing alternative forms of energy with a vengeance? Why are we living in the past when this is the 21st century? Shouldn't we be trying to move our energy to this century as well? Yep the current administration must be happy that even more oil will be available so they don't have to try to develop alternatives to petrolium.
how do you know "the current administration" is not trying to develop alternatives?

Oh.. they are .. that $15,000,000,000 tax break Bush gave the oil industry (while he took the same amount away from student loan funding) is so the oil industry can research more alternative fuels and then charge us full price for them after we gave them $15,000,000,000 to research it

documentation please? Normally i would take your word but you know how people are in P&N! Would be nice to see some ducumentation backing up your opinion... 😀

I truly want to do a betterjob on this research but I am a bit pressed for time right now.. .. and I know the number is 14.something.. ..


Previous discussion here
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1722042&enterthread=y&arctab=y

This article only shows 12.7 billion
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/23/sophomore-stumps-bush/



Energy Tax Breaks Total $14.5 Billion - July 28, 2005

 
the oil people know how to position themselves in the energy market, seeing as if they totally dominate it in all respects.

part of controlling the price of energy is in controlling the supply of it, no matter what form it takes.
 
Here's an idea (of possibly dubious merit): Continue to buy as much oil as possible from the Middle East, while continuing to develop local resources. In the meantime, continue to destabilize region such that the Islamic countries in the area do not invest money into infrastructure or other areas that will pay off over the long term. Then, when they run out of oil, they lose influence on the world stage.
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Here's an idea (of possibly dubious merit): Continue to buy as much oil as possible from the Middle East, while continuing to develop local resources. In the meantime, continue to destabilize region such that the Islamic countries in the area do not invest money into infrastructure or other areas that will pay off over the long term. Then, when they run out of oil, they lose influence on the world stage.
In other words, bring back Ronald Reagan? 😛
 
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
bahahahahaha some bloke in OT actually believes this will lower prices :laugh:
some bloke in OT actually thinks the recent price drop in gas at the pumps only happened in low income areas. 😛

Personal observation as I travel the Country.
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Here's an idea (of possibly dubious merit): Continue to buy as much oil as possible from the Middle East, while continuing to develop local resources. In the meantime, continue to destabilize region such that the Islamic countries in the area do not invest money into infrastructure or other areas that will pay off over the long term. Then, when they run out of oil, they lose influence on the world stage.

slightly OT....

but then simply don't complain when these countries (islamic or not) have problems later on and produce a generation of terrorists....because we will have spent a generation "destabalizing" the region, however you want to hide the actions that would go on behind that vague, generic term.
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Here's an idea (of possibly dubious merit): Continue to buy as much oil as possible from the Middle East, while continuing to develop local resources. In the meantime, continue to destabilize region such that the Islamic countries in the area do not invest money into infrastructure or other areas that will pay off over the long term. Then, when they run out of oil, they lose influence on the world stage.

Seems like that maybe already in effect.

I would prefer the US would have chosen to spend the several hundredbillions on coverting our economy away from oil instead of sending soldiers to the ME. Develop alternate fuels and promote using less fossil fuels. The US needs to develop a big economic advantage to leverage that against China and India.

 
Originally posted by: techs
Hopefully this will put an end to the ANWR issue.

So you're ok with building one of the world's largest off-shore drilling rigs in the middle of an ocean that sits right in the path of hurricane ally but drilling in a frozen wasteland is off limits?

Pardon me for a sec.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

The hypocrisy is almost too much to take.
 
Because right now alternative forms of energy cost more than the oil we are drilling and will be for the near future.

So how much would ethanol cost sans the 100% tarriff this government put on importing it from Brazil?

How much would "home grown" ethanol cost if we were allowed to produce it from switchgrass, instead of the more politically convienent and resource-consuming corn?



 
Originally posted by: kage69
Because right now alternative forms of energy cost more than the oil we are drilling and will be for the near future.

So how much would ethanol cost sans the 100% tarriff this government put on importing it from Brazil?

How much would "home grown" ethanol cost if we were allowed to produce it from switchgrass, instead of the more politically convienent and resource-consuming corn?

I dont know, why dont you figure it out and present a project plan to a company and make it happen? Right now we know the alternative forms of energy cost more than oil, that hasnt changed and wont change in the near future. Until it does change, expect oil to drive our economies. Denying reality will only hurt us in the near and long term.

Once oil becomes too expensive you can bet other alternatives will be delivered at lower costs than oil, although they may be higher than todays costs.



 
I dont know, why dont you figure it out and present a project plan to a company and make it happen?

LOL, absolutely fantastic reply. Way to go. The 'well if you're not acting on it you shouldn't be thinking it' angle. But just FYI, my parents and I are rolling around some numbers and might be opening up a privately owned biodiesel station soon. The real estate is already purchased, and much of the equipment that came with it can be used with a small amount of upgrading. Delivery seems to be the biggest hurdle. We'll see what happens.


Right now we know the alternative forms of energy cost more than oil, that hasnt changed and wont change in the near future. Until it does change, expect oil to drive our economies. Denying reality will only hurt us in the near and long term.


Who is we? You'll have to forgive me if I follow suit and lump all alternatives into the same basket as hydrogen.
My point was citing the price of alternatives as a problem is meaningless when we're the ones choosing to make it even more out of reach... unless you think a 100% tarriff is some kind of market stimulus strategy. And btw, biodiesel is already cheaper than normal diesel many places out West. Increased adoption will likely mean increased production, which means...

No, reality is that multi-billion dollar oil platforms, pipelines, tankers, refineries, and subsequent transportation costs constitute a hell of a lot more dough than planting large swathes of soy, peanuts, or switchgrass and the relatively minimal amount of refining they require compared to petroleum products (and their accompanying infrastructure).

Protectionism on this kind of scale is what is hurting us, and will continue to do so in the long term. While the economies of China and India continue to go into overdrive, we're sacrificing our competitive future so oil companies can suck their business model dry and certain states can hang onto their farming subsidies. Fvcking brilliant.

Once oil becomes too expensive you can bet other alternatives will be delivered at lower costs than oil, although they may be higher than todays costs.

I'm not disputing the effect higher price has on the adoption of alternatives, I'm more concerned with the time frame involved and the ramifications the switch will have on our national security.
But that's the kind of attitude that will ensure the eventual change is as problematic as possible. The move away from fossil fuels is not something that will happen over night, which is why we need(ed) to start as soon as possible. This has been a topic for discussion since what, when Carter was in office??







Regarding the OP, this location makes more sense than ANWAR simply due to the comparison of volume. Drilling platforms can be engineered to weather gales and hurricanes, and are somewhat mobile to boot. The tundra in Alaska, despite what many republicans and lobbyists who have never been there think, is not devoid of life and will not, even by big oil's estimates produce a worthwhile result in a timely manner.

 
Originally posted by: kage69
Regarding the OP, this location makes more sense than ANWAR simply due to the comparison of volume. Drilling platforms can be engineered to weather gales and hurricanes, and are somewhat mobile to boot. The tundra in Alaska, despite what many republicans and lobbyists who have never been there think, is not devoid of life and will not, even by big oil's estimates produce a worthwhile result in a timely manner.

Bee effin ess.

The volumes are comparable.

The times to develop are comparable (The Mexican find didn't happen overnight)

Even when mobile, floating rigs are more dangerous to the environment than any land based system.

Nobody has ever claimed that the tundra is devoid of life. What is often pointed out is the FACT that every large species the greenies are trying to protect have thrived with arctic oil production.

God forbid you should have a spill, a slick on the ocean can cover miles and kill millions of animals and the effects are felt for decades after. A comparable spill in the arctic (as evidenced by the BP screw up last winter) is a problem much easier to clean up and far less dangerous to wildlife on land than in the water.

 
Back
Top