Obama: "Drilling on Public Lands has Not Decreased"

[herm0016]

What does America export? That's right - gasoline. We actually exported more than we imported last year. Bring all the oil you want down to Texas and watch that gas sail away. We may be able to become independent in electricity production, but when it comes to transportation, not any time soon.

we are a net exporter of refined products, but a net importer of crude oil. We refine a lot of oil from other places and then send it out again.

 

[woolfe9999]

So Obama is responsible for oil production from the first day he is in office, but he is not responsible for unemployment from day 1?

So Obama is responsible for unemployment from day 1, but not for production?

See how it works?

The truth: he wasn't responsible for either from day 1. Not in the objective reality that exists outside of partisan rantings.

 

[Darwin333]

ok, so Romney was lying then. It is settled.

Actually, neither were. Romney was correct in stating that oil production has dropped by 14% on federal lands if you only look at the last year he was in office. If you look at his entire presidency then Obama is right.

With that said, it takes quite a while from the time a permit is issued to actually having oil being produced from that area. We aren't talking a few months or even a year (although I am sure there are a few instances were it has been done quickly it is NOT the norm). You have all sorts of surveys that have to be completed and once that is done they start drilling test wells which isn't quick at all. It could take 6 months to drill a test well or two (assuming the rig doesn't have to move) and that is AFTER they survey the area to find the best places to drill etc... Then move the rig and more test wells until they find enough information to really start drilling. Then you start drilling production wells and when you finally have that done you cap off the well and move in a production rig to start producing the oil.

This isn't a ding against Obama at all, but I am curious of how much of that production is actually do from permits his administration has issued.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The only way to nullify the ME is to totally withdraw from the international oil market. I don't think that's doable from a domestic production standpoint long term.

We really need to focus on greater efficiency of use, particularly in transportation where we're burning most of it. If we can reduce the overall domestic demand without substantially harming the economy we might be able to source everything domestically on a sustainable basis.

I don't see oil being the ne plus ultra of energy. The immediate goal is to get energy costs down. That makes us more competitive and more likely to hire here. It's a stopgap measure which also helps our economy.

The challenge to move off oil need only be a matter of science and technology when we have an automatic funding mechanism, however considering the world, particularly the ME, theres more at stake than dollars. No conservation plan will prevent us being subject to blackmail nor keep the world from consuming more. Only a fool acts to put out a fire until it engulfs his house.

 

[zephyrprime]

That's the way it's supposed to work in theory. According to a study we discussed here some time ago, however, that's not how it works in practice. There was no material correlation between domestic production and pump prices. I believe the explanation for this disconnect is that refinery-related variables, global speculator actions, and OPEC manipulation play a far, far greater role in prices than U.S. production.

This is because oil is a fungible commodity so there is no relationship between domestic production and price. The price is directly related instead to global production. So even if US production were 200% of US usage, the price would go down only a little. However, if global production went up 10%, the price would go down a lot.

It doesn't matter how much the US produces. If the price of oil is high on the global market and low in the US, US produces will simply sell into the global market at that high price instead of into the US. US prices would then rise to meet global prices while global prices would decline slightly.

 

[MovingTarget]

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/18/news/economy/drilling-regulations/index.htm

there's lots more, just look them up.

That is a bit vague. I asked for specifics, hoping that herm would back his statement up with a reasonable response...

its not the regulations that are the issue, its the regulators. We need some regulation. they charge millions to issue permits, then deny one of them to keep you from exercising your lease.

here is one of the most costly examples: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/25/energy-america-oil-drilling-denial/

...which it looks like he did. Good example. Regulations are a good thing, but this is an instance they are being applied in a way that is counterproductive to the intent of the regulations. Simply screaming "we got stopped by regulations!" is not a reason against them.

On another note, do you have personal experience with such an instance? I was curious because you said that you worked in the oil drilling industry.

 

[Darwin333]

The U.S. will never be energy independent no matter what the politicians say. That godsend oil drilling in North Dakota that you hear about all the time produces a whopping 600k barrels right now and will top about around 1.3 million in a few years. Those wells decline 80% within the first year. It is basically making up for declining Alaskan production which makes it a wash. Tar sands produce 1.7 million barrels a day right now but will top out at 3.7 million in 10 years. And that doesn't even include the terrible EROI that those two have. Deep water drilling in gulf may help but isn't going to come close to what we need. It just isn't going to cut it. America uses a whopping 18.5 million barrels a day!

Romney had a very good term he used and that was "North America energy independent". We import the majority of our imported oil from Mexico and Canada, we aren't really looking to replace that as both are neighbors and friendly to us and most importantly the oil isn't in a horribly unstable region that requires a fuckton of our military to be over there to ensure our supply doesn't get cut off. What our goal is, or at least should be, to get off of middle east oil and that goal is very obtainable with an aggressive energy plan. Not only does that stop us from sending money to people who would love nothing more than to use it to kill us, not only can our military basically abandon the middle east area, but we create a ton of GREAT paying jobs in the process AND increase national security.

Personally, I would be moving very aggressively on deepwater exploration in the Gulf. I have already listed extremely reasonable and easily implemented saftey procedures the .gov could implement, with the oil industry footing the bill, for the few deepwater rigs we would have operating (there are only like 20 in the entire world). I would open up new areas for drilling in Federal waters, for states that don't want offshore drilling maybe triple the distance were Federal waters start and if oil is there we would drill it. I am not familiar with the reserves we have on land but we would be going after that too.

Then I would pass some sort of law that says X% of royalties from the new drilling are to go directly to renewable energy be it incentives to install it, pure research, whatever.

Also, someone tell me why we don't do the "coal to oil" thing please, last I heard it cost an equivalent of $80/bbl, why aren't we doing this and how much oil can we realistically expect from it?

What does America export? That's right - gasoline. We actually exported more than we imported last year. Bring all the oil you want down to Texas and watch that gas sail away. We may be able to become independent in electricity production, but when it comes to transportation, not any time soon.

A large portion of that gas is exported to Mexico. Mexico exports us a fuckton of oil but they don't have the refinery capacity in their own country to meet their needs. So they basically made us a deal that says we will export you a bunch of oil but you have to refine a little bit into finished product and sell it back to us. Not a bad deal at all.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttimus1&f=a

Doesn't look like our imports are down much at all, and they appear about identical for the last several years.

 

[piasabird]

It takes like 90 permits to drill an oil well??? You have to do geological and environmental studies and then the president had like a moratorium on oil drilling. The president is a liar.

 

[piasabird]

Yes we still import just as many japanese rice burners.

 

[Darwin333]

The only way to nullify the ME is to totally withdraw from the international oil market. I don't think that's doable from a domestic production standpoint long term.

We really need to focus on greater efficiency of use, particularly in transportation where we're burning most of it. If we can reduce the overall domestic demand without substantially harming the economy we might be able to source everything domestically on a sustainable basis.

That is completely untrue. We could be off of ME oil in under 10 years if we got aggressive enough.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That is completely untrue. We could be off of ME oil in under 10 years if we got aggressive enough.

How?

 

[monovillage]

That is a bit vague. I asked for specifics, hoping that herm would back his statement up with a reasonable response...



...which it looks like he did. Good example. Regulations are a good thing, but this is an instance they are being applied in a way that is counterproductive to the intent of the regulations. Simply screaming "we got stopped by regulations!" is not a reason against them.

On another note, do you have personal experience with such an instance? I was curious because you said that you worked in the oil drilling industry.

Some regulations are a good thing, some are over the top and far too expensive for minimal improvements and some have unintended negative consequences.

I don't work in the industry and never have, but a couple of other posters work in it or related industries (solar)

 

[herm0016]

That is a bit vague. I asked for specifics, hoping that herm would back his statement up with a reasonable response...



...which it looks like he did. Good example. Regulations are a good thing, but this is an instance they are being applied in a way that is counterproductive to the intent of the regulations. Simply screaming "we got stopped by regulations!" is not a reason against them.

On another note, do you have personal experience with such an instance? I was curious because you said that you worked in the oil drilling industry.

My work comes inbetween the drilling rig physically drilling the well and when the well is put to production. I hear about these things from the oil company's engineers mostly.

 

[JTsyo]

I think the US has long term plans to keep a healthy reserve in case the ME turns into a CF of a magnitude higher than it currently is. This will carry us for a few years and give us a chance to make a transition.

 

[Darwin333]

How?

Despite what most people believe the ME is not our largest supply of imported oil. We get the lions share of our imported oil from Canada and Mexico.

We have the resources and the ability to increase domestic production enough so that we no longer need to import oil from the ME, its simply a matter of making that policy.

 

[Darwin333]

I think the US has long term plans to keep a healthy reserve in case the ME turns into a CF of a magnitude higher than it currently is. This will carry us for a few years and give us a chance to make a transition.

No it won't because of the time between the ME supply being cut off and the time it takes to get our untapped reserves online. The time in between, and we are talking years, would put us into a depression not seen in most of our lifetimes. It won't be a question how much does oil cost it will be a question of can we find gas at the pump regardless of what it costs.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't work in the industry and never have, but a couple of other posters work in it or related industries (solar)

About a decade ago I worked on a drilling rig as a roughneck and as a derrick hand. Today I own my own business in the solar market so I have a pretty decent grasp on the realities of both fossil fuels (at least extracting them) and renewables.

I would love to say that we are able to say fuck fossil fuels and go all renewable for quite a few reasons but not the least of which it would make me a fortune but we simply aren't there. In the meantime, we need to get off of ME oil as soon as humanly possible for both economic and national security reasons. The money we would save from not being required to have such a huge .mil presence in the ME alone would be worth it.

 

[monovillage]

About a decade ago I worked on a drilling rig as a roughneck and as a derrick hand. Today I own my own business in the solar market so I have a pretty decent grasp on the realities of both fossil fuels (at least extracting them) and renewables.

I would love to say that we are able to say fuck fossil fuels and go all renewable for quite a few reasons but not the least of which it would make me a fortune but we simply aren't there. In the meantime, we need to get off of ME oil as soon as humanly possible for both economic and national security reasons. The money we would save from not being required to have such a huge .mil presence in the ME alone would be worth it.

I agree 100%.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Despite what most people believe the ME is not our largest supply of imported oil. We get the lions share of our imported oil from Canada and Mexico.

We have the resources and the ability to increase domestic production enough so that we no longer need to import oil from the ME, its simply a matter of making that policy.

But it isn't our oil. Oh we may consume some but it goes to the highest bidder AKA the market, speculative pressures and all. We're like a farmer who instead of reserving some crops for personal use goes to the market and pays full price. What we drill goes into the global market, not directly injected at cost. Thats why I posted an alternative earlier.

 

[openwheel]

Romney's claim was incorrect. Simple as that. It was down 14% in one year, but overall still up over 10%. Romney claimed it went down "each" year which is a deceptive. I don't have a problem with Politicians being deceptive because they ALL do (don't claim your party's candidates do not please), but I have a problem with candidates not doing their homework.

 

[lotus503]

This is because oil is a fungible commodity so there is no relationship between domestic production and price. The price is directly related instead to global production. So even if US production were 200% of US usage, the price would go down only a little. However, if global production went up 10%, the price would go down a lot.

It doesn't matter how much the US produces. If the price of oil is high on the global market and low in the US, US produces will simply sell into the global market at that high price instead of into the US. US prices would then rise to meet global prices while global prices would decline slightly.

Exactly, which is why the whole drill baby drill fallacy is just that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Exactly, which is why the whole drill baby drill fallacy is just that.

Unless we untie domestic oil production from the market as I've suggested.

 

[lotus503]

Unless we untie domestic oil production from the market as I've suggested.

Interesting idea, I think untying speculation from the market would do a better job at lowering prices.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The cost plus fee concept is not uncommon. Keep a close check on the books and pay enough for a profit. Private business gets some benefit and any market added costs are eliminated. This ought to be part of a holistic approach to improve the economy, but I'm sure I hurt some brains already. I do have comprehensive suggestions, some of which I've posted over time, but I suspect that new ideas are too difficult for many, especially the political partisans. Often it's difficult to get a point across because democrat or republican is something they need as part of their conceptual framework.