Tire Pressured

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The mid-term problem with expanded drilling is it will be a drop in the bucket. The amount of additional oil it will eventually add to our oil supply would help, but only to about the same extent as simple conservation measures like properly-inflated tires and well-tuned engines. That was Obama's point. Moreover, conservation measures can begin helping immediately, unlike expanded drilling.

I disagree with the "drop in a bucket" line of spin. ANWAR is estimated to have about 16BB, and there might be considerably more. The current ban on driling also means no exploration, you gotta drill to really explore.

The easter costal area is now estimated to 86,5 BB.

The government report Pelsoi & friends are quoting conservativey quotes a figure of an additional 18BB?

See bolded

Fern

And that doesn't even include Oil Shale which is estimated at over 1 trillion barrels of oil. We've blocked development for that as well.

Shale Oil is at this moment more expensive to produce than just import, it's a low-quality oil.

Give it a decade or two then it might make economic sense.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The mid-term problem with expanded drilling is it will be a drop in the bucket. The amount of additional oil it will eventually add to our oil supply would help, but only to about the same extent as simple conservation measures like properly-inflated tires and well-tuned engines. That was Obama's point. Moreover, conservation measures can begin helping immediately, unlike expanded drilling.

I disagree with the "drop in a bucket" line of spin. ANWAR is estimated to have about 16BB, and there might be considerably more. The current ban on driling also means no exploration, you gotta drill to really explore.

The easter costal area is now estimated to 86,5 BB.

The government report Pelsoi & friends are quoting conservativey quotes a figure of an additional 18BB?

See bolded

Fern

And that doesn't even include Oil Shale which is estimated at over 1 trillion barrels of oil. We've blocked development for that as well.

Shale Oil is at this moment more expensive to produce than just import, it's a low-quality oil.

Give it a decade or two then it might make economic sense.

Right. Shale Oil can be used for applications other than gas for cars though. Like kerosene, diesel, and jet fuel. However, blocking the development of oil shale like we are currently doing helps nothing.

 

[fskimospy]

You guys realize that the total amount of oil in an area isn't really the important thing for lowering oil prices, right? It's how much we're going to extract daily/per year. And that number for offshore drilling and ANWR is not particularly high. That's why it doesn't help that much.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You guys realize that the total amount of oil in an area isn't really the important thing for lowering oil prices, right? It's how much we're going to extract daily/per year. And that number for offshore drilling and ANWR is not particularly high. That's why it doesn't help that much.

Even without the OCS, ANWR should produce ~1.5 million barrels a day at full bore. That increases our domestic production by ~25-30%. I think that would have a noticeable influence on the market in todays economy. Too bad we didnt start drilling 13 years ago. But lets make the same mistakes again and wait another 13 years when we are consuming more oil and producing less at home and wonder why we didnt get the ball rolling in 08. Maybe we can hit the 90% import range and be in a constant state of strife in some shithole 3rd world country.

/shrug

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You guys realize that the total amount of oil in an area isn't really the important thing for lowering oil prices, right? It's how much we're going to extract daily/per year. And that number for offshore drilling and ANWR is not particularly high. That's why it doesn't help that much.

The US uses about 9.2 million barrels of oil per day for transportation. If all tires are inflated properly and cars tuned for a 3-4% saving (I'll just say 4%), that's 368,000 barrels of oil per day. Our rigs in the gulf currently bring in over 1 million barrels of oil per day and is projected to do 2 million in the next 10 years. And that's without drilling for known oil reserves off the Florida coast. Drilling off the coast of California, the East Coast, and the Alaskan coast could easily surpass the 368,000 barrels of savings per day. And that's not counting ANWR and oil shale.

Since world demand is expected to reach 115 million barrels of oil per day in 2030 (up from the current 87 million barrels of oil per day), we would be wise to increase our supply while also working on efficiency and alternative fuels.

 

[idiotekniQues]

drilling anywhere and everywhere has potential costs that nobody wants to address. californians remember what it was like to goto the beach and leave with oil on your skin.

what we should have been doing for the last 13 years is increasing auto efficiency and alternative energies at a more rapid pace. THAT is the mistake we should not make again.

the other mistake we should not make is elect a party that mocks legitimate and substantial conservation efforts.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
drilling anywhere and everywhere has potential costs that nobody wants to address. californians remember what it was like to goto the beach and leave with oil on your skin.

That was almost 40 years ago and is no longer a concern. More oil enters US waters through natural seepage from the ocean floor than from oil drilling. Given the battering that oil rigs in the gulf take from hurricanes and other weather systems, that is a remarkable statistic.

150-170 barrels worth of oil seep out from the offshore Coal Oil point every day. That's just one area off the California coast.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
drilling anywhere and everywhere has potential costs that nobody wants to address. californians remember what it was like to goto the beach and leave with oil on your skin.

That was almost 40 years ago and is no longer a concern. More oil enters US waters through natural seepage from the ocean floor than from oil drilling. Given the battering that oil rigs in the gulf take from hurricanes and other weather systems, that is a remarkable statistic.

150-170 barrels worth of oil seep out from the offshore Coal Oil point every day. That's just one area off the California coast.

Umm, no. This isn't what's holding us back.

Santa Barbra Oil Disaster

To drill on the California Coast you will need a lot more than just money, a whole lot more.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Tab
-snip-
Umm, no. This isn't what's holding us back.

Santa Barbra Oil Disaster

To drill on the California Coast you will need a lot more than just money, a whole lot more.

That's 40 years ago and the technology has changed.

There are 20-30 drilling rigs now off SoCal, if one of those had a problem in the last 5-10 years it would be another matter.

Fern

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
drilling anywhere and everywhere has potential costs that nobody wants to address. californians remember what it was like to goto the beach and leave with oil on your skin.

That was almost 40 years ago and is no longer a concern. More oil enters US waters through natural seepage from the ocean floor than from oil drilling. Given the battering that oil rigs in the gulf take from hurricanes and other weather systems, that is a remarkable statistic.

150-170 barrels worth of oil seep out from the offshore Coal Oil point every day. That's just one area off the California coast.

Umm, no. This isn't what's holding us back.

Santa Barbra Oil Disaster

To drill on the California Coast you will need a lot more than just money, a whole lot more.

Yes, that is the incident idiotkniQues referenced above. That was 1969. There hasn't been an oil spill like that from an oil rig since.

link - National Ocean Industries Association Studies showing that less than 1% of oil in American waters comes from drilling and extraction. 63% comes from natural seepage. More than 2000 seeps have been mapped off the coast of California.

 

[jonks]

TDS recently ran a great segment showing drilling proponents over time repeatedly dropping the amount of time for expected results from such drilling from 2030 to 6-8 years, to 4-5 years, to 2-3 years, to 18 months, to "just a few months". I guess focus groups showed people didn't want to wait very long for results, so what do you do, tell the truth or change the facts?

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/...s_terrorists_0807.html

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jonks
TDS recently ran a great segment showing drilling proponents over time repeatedly dropping the amount of time for expected results from such drilling from 2030 to 6-8 years, to 4-5 years, to 2-3 years, to 18 months, to "just a few months". I guess focus groups showed people didn't want to wait very long for results, so what do you do, tell the truth or change the facts?

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/...s_terrorists_0807.html

I'm pretty sure the government report says 2017, even that is if no leases are auctioned/awarded until 2012.

As far as it just being a couple years, I've heard oil experts say that is possible for some of the known deposits located near existing infrastructure.

I don't see why it should be just one *number* anyway, some are known and others will have to be discovered/explored etc.

Fern

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

If anyone here is a partisan hack its yourself. You see, you have a consistent record here of defending every pathetic policy Obama holds, inlcuding the "Dont drill, inflate" policy you defend here.

Except that I don't. The fact that you believe that just shows you spend as little time reading other people's posts here as you do researching the issues before you make your own.

Feel free to post links

Here you go.

The search here sucks, or I would post more. I also slammed him about his flip flop on FISA, which if you've been reading anything I've been writing over the last few years you would know that it is one of my most important issues, and one he sold out on. (I feel I have to mention this because it seems obvious at this point that you don't read very well)

So, are apologies in order? What I'm going to predict is that you'll declare my post inadequate Obama hating and pretend nothing happened.

One post! Congratulations! I take back the part of you defending EVERY policy Obama supports. You defend ALMOST ALL of the policies he holds.

Wow, your reply was shocking now wasn't it?

You're pathetic.

Not as pathetic as those who blindly follow Obama like yourself.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Right. Shale Oil can be used for applications other than gas for cars though. Like kerosene, diesel, and jet fuel. However, blocking the development of oil shale like we are currently doing helps nothing.

Once again, the Oil Shale myth arises!

Oil Shale isn't shale, and, very importantly, contains no oil.

"Oil Shale" is organic marlstone, containing kerogen, a crude organic precursor to oil that can be cracked into usable hydrocarbons through application of extreme heat. Large scale kerogen pyrolysis would likely consume more energy than is produced as fuels, and requires large volumes of water (ask your friends in Colorado and Utah how much surplus water they have to give to the oil shale industry). Further, it would mean strip mining the Rocky Mountains for ex situ extraction, or cooking marlstone underground for in situ extraction, an unproven and likely impractical process.

edit: added quote that inspired rant

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

One post! Congratulations! I take back the part of you defending EVERY policy Obama supports. You defend ALMOST ALL of the policies he holds.

Wow, your reply was shocking now wasn't it?

You're pathetic.

Not as pathetic as those who blindly follow Obama like yourself.

So recently I was reading a journal article about brain imaging and political thought. You know what was interesting about it? It said that for political sophisticates, thinking about politics wasn't like driving a car, or doing a math problem, it was like recess. (If you're actually interested I'll explain further.)

I thought that was neat. Now I see that talking to people like you on P&N is also like recess. Partly because of the thought patterns developed by people who frequently think about politics, and partially because this appears to be the only place outside of Ms. Jacobs' 5th grade playtime outside where the comeback "I know you are but what am I!?!" is still okay.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
...and partially because this appears to be the only place outside of Ms. Jacobs' 5th grade playtime outside where the comeback "I know you are but what am I!?!" is still okay.

and widely used.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87
Deep down inside though everybody understands the issue. Obama made a remark and the politics of the day ran with it(get over it). Obama understands the issue and why he has started to change his policy on off shore drilling.

:thumbsup:

That is one of the main reasons I like him. I like how he is willing to change his views and policies based on a mixture of both what the people want and what he has come to learn that is best for the country. I hate how a lot of politicians are nothing but a bunch of stubborn mules who refuse to change their ways out of fear that the public will just point fingers and say, "I told you so! You were wrong!" Screw that. Screw what they think. Do what is best and be done with it.

When a politician is bought and paid for by a contributor who is looking for favorable legislation, there's only so many ways it can be spun.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Queasy
Right. Shale Oil can be used for applications other than gas for cars though. Like kerosene, diesel, and jet fuel. However, blocking the development of oil shale like we are currently doing helps nothing.

Once again, the Oil Shale myth arises!

Oil Shale isn't shale, and, very importantly, contains no oil.

"Oil Shale" is organic marlstone, containing kerogen, a crude organic precursor to oil that can be cracked into usable hydrocarbons through application of extreme heat. Large scale kerogen pyrolysis would likely consume more energy than is produced as fuels, and requires large volumes of water (ask your friends in Colorado and Utah how much surplus water they have to give to the oil shale industry). Further, it would mean strip mining the Rocky Mountains for ex situ extraction, or cooking marlstone underground for in situ extraction, an unproven and likely impractical process.

edit: added quote that inspired rant

Jordan just contracted with Shell Oil to exploit their oil shale resources.

Obviously, there are potential uses for oil shale or people wouldn't be looking into developing it. There are companies that are trying to exploit the resource in an environmentally way. EnShale claims they can do it with much less water and much less pollution than previous efforts. I say let these companies get innovating and developing.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Jordan just contracted with Shell Oil to exploit their oil shale resources.
Obviously, there are potential uses for oil shale or people wouldn't be looking into developing it. There are companies that are trying to exploit the resource in an environmentally way. EnShale claims they can do it with much less water and much less pollution than previous efforts. I say let these companies get innovating and developing.

I applaud their efforts and investment, and wish them the best.

I do, however, wish people would quit talking about "oil shale" as if it's some ready resource ready to pump and use if just the liberals and tree huggers would get out of the way and let them tear down the Rocky Mountains.

edit: punctuation

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Queasy
Jordan just contracted with Shell Oil to exploit their oil shale resources.
Obviously, there are potential uses for oil shale or people wouldn't be looking into developing it. There are companies that are trying to exploit the resource in an environmentally way. EnShale claims they can do it with much less water and much less pollution than previous efforts. I say let these companies get innovating and developing.

I applaud their efforts and investment, and wish them the best.

I do, however, wish people would quit talking about "oil shale" as if it's some ready resource ready to pump and use if just the liberals and tree huggers would get out of the way and let them tear down the Rocky Mountains.

edit: punctuation

I agree. I'm well aware that it isn't ready to be pulled out of the ground tomorrow. But, there are blocks being put up by Dems and environmentalists that slows and prevents the innovating and developing I'm talking about. It's to the point where the Dems are blocking a lifting of a moratorium on just the Dept of the Interior so that it can create regulations on how oil shale can be developed. If you won't even let them setup the rules, nothing will ever happen.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

One post! Congratulations! I take back the part of you defending EVERY policy Obama supports. You defend ALMOST ALL of the policies he holds.

Wow, your reply was shocking now wasn't it?

You're pathetic.

Not as pathetic as those who blindly follow Obama like yourself.

So recently I was reading a journal article about brain imaging and political thought. You know what was interesting about it? It said that for political sophisticates, thinking about politics wasn't like driving a car, or doing a math problem, it was like recess. (If you're actually interested I'll explain further.)

I thought that was neat. Now I see that talking to people like you on P&N is also like recess. Partly because of the thought patterns developed by people who frequently think about politics, and partially because this appears to be the only place outside of Ms. Jacobs' 5th grade playtime outside where the comeback "I know you are but what am I!?!" is still okay.

Yes, its clear you are obviously on a mental recess to support Obama's "Don't drill, inflate" policy. I'm glad you are finally realizing it.

And yes, you are so much smarter and more intelligent than I. Thanks for your keen insight on political hackary. Change the subject all you want, it doesnt change the fact that you are nothing more than Obama's water boy with the occasional disagreement with his policies most likely so that you can use it to dispute the very claims I've made here.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

One post! Congratulations! I take back the part of you defending EVERY policy Obama supports. You defend ALMOST ALL of the policies he holds.

Wow, your reply was shocking now wasn't it?

You're pathetic.

Not as pathetic as those who blindly follow Obama like yourself.

So recently I was reading a journal article about brain imaging and political thought. You know what was interesting about it? It said that for political sophisticates, thinking about politics wasn't like driving a car, or doing a math problem, it was like recess. (If you're actually interested I'll explain further.)

I thought that was neat. Now I see that talking to people like you on P&N is also like recess. Partly because of the thought patterns developed by people who frequently think about politics, and partially because this appears to be the only place outside of Ms. Jacobs' 5th grade playtime outside where the comeback "I know you are but what am I!?!" is still okay.

Yes, its clear you are obviously on a mental recess to support Obama's "Don't drill, inflate" policy. I'm glad you are finally realizing it.

And yes, you are so much smarter and more intelligent than I. Thanks for your keen insight on political hackary. Change the subject all you want, it doesnt change the fact that you are nothing more than Obama's water boy with the occasional disagreement with his policies most likely so that you can use it to dispute the very claims I've made here.

I don't feel like I need to add anything to this. Awesome... ahahahaha.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

One post! Congratulations! I take back the part of you defending EVERY policy Obama supports. You defend ALMOST ALL of the policies he holds.

Wow, your reply was shocking now wasn't it?

You're pathetic.

Not as pathetic as those who blindly follow Obama like yourself.

So recently I was reading a journal article about brain imaging and political thought. You know what was interesting about it? It said that for political sophisticates, thinking about politics wasn't like driving a car, or doing a math problem, it was like recess. (If you're actually interested I'll explain further.)

I thought that was neat. Now I see that talking to people like you on P&N is also like recess. Partly because of the thought patterns developed by people who frequently think about politics, and partially because this appears to be the only place outside of Ms. Jacobs' 5th grade playtime outside where the comeback "I know you are but what am I!?!" is still okay.

Yes, its clear you are obviously on a mental recess to support Obama's "Don't drill, inflate" policy. I'm glad you are finally realizing it.

And yes, you are so much smarter and more intelligent than I. Thanks for your keen insight on political hackary. Change the subject all you want, it doesnt change the fact that you are nothing more than Obama's water boy with the occasional disagreement with his policies most likely so that you can use it to dispute the very claims I've made here.

I don't feel like I need to add anything to this. Awesome... ahahahaha.

Glad you agree. :thumbsup:

 

[Vic]

McCain had something going with oil drilling until this. Too bad for him, he had to personally demonstrate the intentionally-wasteful mentality that causes most Americans to be leery about expanding oil dependence.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic
McCain had something going with oil drilling until this. Too bad for him, he had to personally demonstrate the intentionally-wasteful mentality that causes most Americans to be leery about expanding oil dependence.

There is a difference between creating more oil dependence and allowing enough oil to flow to not destroy the economy. World demand for oil is going to continue to grow, no matter what the US does. We have the technology to greatly diminish our demand for oil, but we cannot replace every car with a hybrid tomorrow. If only electric cars were sold today, it will still take 20 years to turn over our fleet of cars.