perunapower Wrote:

Rebel Wrote:

perunapower Wrote:All of the stories I posted at the top of the thread? All of the experts who say that any effect of drilling domestically wouldn't be felt for years and would have a small effect.

I mean what else do you want me to post? All you're going to rebut with is "how do you know that for sure?" I've linked to a Anchorage Daily News article, a Reuters article, a Time article, and a NPR interview, all of which say about the same thing. Conservatives say it would significantly decrease oil prices immediately. How can something that takes the better part of a decade help immediately?

I am NOT saying that we don't need to drill; I am just perplexed at how people think that drilling would be an immediate (or highly effective) means of driving down oil prices.

What would NOT drilling do? What shape would we be in if we had told the tree-hugger to sit down, shut the **** up, and started drilling soon after.....decades ago?

Liberal policies aren't the reason OPEC is screwing us right now, but they ARE the reason we weren't prepared for it.

Are you seriously incapable of reading? Read the whole damn thing. Either you're not reading what I'm writing or you're a moron because I am explicitly saying we need to drill. I'm not even hiding it! I'll even it bold it to show you where I said it. I'll repeat it too. We need to drill. We also need to be realistic when it comes to how much drilling is going to affect gas and oil prices.

Yeah, I read the entire GDamn thing. I understand you're for drilling, but I COMPLETELY disagree with how much you're marginalizing it. Oil is a speculative commodity. Not ONE of your "so-called" experts can ascertain as to what the speculators will do once we announce we're drilling, and we're drilling now.

Meanwhile........................


Conservation is just beating on the door just trying to be heard...............................

Machiavelli Wrote:Meanwhile........................


Conservation is just beating on the door just trying to be heard...............................

You first. Give up your PC, your car, and your TV. Replace it with a bicycle, two cups and a string, and a crank-up sound box.

Rebel Wrote:Yeah, I read the entire GDamn thing. I understand you're for drilling, but I COMPLETELY disagree with how much you're marginalizing it. Oil is a speculative commodity. Not ONE of your "so-called" experts can ascertain as to what the speculators will do once we announce we're drilling, and we're drilling now.

So "so-called experts", the head of the DoE, the director of the Environment and National Resources Program at Harvard, the head of the EIA, the National Resources Defense Council, numerous economists, and numerous energy analysts, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Obviously, these men with many years of energy expertise, it is their job to know quite a bit about the energy market after all, can't foresee the future. All they can do is give their educated opinion, which is a hell of a lot more educated than most people. I'm not quoting the DU, Daily Kos, and Huffington Post here. These are highly respected energy groups and individuals.

Since you disagree with me so vehemently, how am I marginalizing the effect we will have? What exactly is an energy expert since apparently the Department of Energy and National Resources Defense Council don't have a clue? Prove me wrong. Show some initiative and get some facts. Find some experts' opinions.

perunapower Wrote:So "so-called experts", the head of the DoE, the director of the Environment and National Resources Program at Harvard, the head of the EIA, the National Resources Defense Council, numerous economists, and numerous energy analysts, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

More than people who have been in the industry their entire lives? I.e., the CEO's of oil companies?

perunapower Wrote:So "so-called experts", the head of the DoE, the director of the Environment and National Resources Program at Harvard, the head of the EIA, the National Resources Defense Council, numerous economists, and numerous energy analysts, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Since you disagree with me so vehemently, how am I marginalizing the effect we will have? What exactly is an energy expert since apparently the Department of Energy and National Resources Defense Council don't have a clue? Prove me wrong. Show some initiative and get some facts. Find some experts' opinions.

The problem is not what the "so-called experts" say as much as it is how their comments have been spun and misinterpreted by the non-expert journalists and politicians--and there's been some of this on both sides, to be fair.

The statement that production from ANWR would reduce oil prices by 75 cents a barrel does not mean that it won't have a material effect. The reason is that without ANWR prices won't stay the same, but will continue to escalate as demand increases in developing countries such as China and India. Suppose I say ANWR will reduce the price of oil by 75 cents a barrel, but no ANWR will result in a $50 increase--is that a material impact? Clearly, yes. I can't say that with certainty because I haven't seen a conclusive analysis, but based on what data I have seen, I think that's in the ballpark.

Neither deep water offshore drilling nor ANWR can reduce the price of a barrel significantly, because both are pretty expensive to drill, and probably need something close to today's prices to be econmically feasible. You're not going to see $40/barrel oil out of ANWR or deep water offshore drilling, because the oil can't be produced at that price. But bringing online additional supply that is profitable to produce at prices above $60-80/barrel can serve effectively to hold the line at current levels. One of the reasons that those two opportunities are currently getting more publicity is because prices are finally in the range to make them profitable.

Implying that drilling in deep water offshore or in ANWR can reduce the price of gasoline to $2-3/gallon is lying, and apparently a disingenuous lie. Implying that extrapolating from current production rates on producing federal oil and gas leases is a reasonable way to estmate the oil and gas reserves under leased but non-producing acreage, as was done in the extremely inappropriately named document entitled "The Truth About America's Energy" produced by Rep. Rahall's staff a couple of weeks ago is also lying, and also apparently a disingenuous lie.

That whole document is laced with obviously false assumptions and faulty logic. If the staff members who produced that document did not know better, then they were not competent to produce the report. If they did know better, then the only way to describe the document is a deliberate effort to deceive the American public. I don't know whether Rep. Rahall and his staff are "ability challenged" or "integrity challenged," but that document proves that they are one or the other.

It will be years before the full effect of additional drilling is felt. The number of those years, and the associated cost, are smaller for additional drilling than for any alternative. That's the advantage of drill here, drill now--greater impact in a hurry and cheaper. There are also well-documented disadvantages, and for those reasons drill here, drill now cannot be the only answer.

Much has been made of the assertion that the US is the only developed country without universal health care, or that the US is the only developed country that didn't sign on to Kyoto. Those are valid issues. An equally valid issue--the US is the only developed country that forbids offshore energy exploration. Norway is much more green-friendly, by any reckoning, than is the US, but Norway permits offshore drilling in very deep water. New Zealand is much more green-friendly, by any reckoning, than is the US, but New Zealand permits offshore drilling. Brasil gets a lot of publicity for its biofuels program, but increased drilling is responsible for more of Brasil's energy today than are biofuels.

We still aren't talking enough about conservation. Western Europe has a comparable area, population, and economy, and consumes half as much oil per capita as we do. We need to understand how they do it, and do the same things here.

Rebel Wrote:

perunapower Wrote:So "so-called experts", the head of the DoE, the director of the Environment and National Resources Program at Harvard, the head of the EIA, the National Resources Defense Council, numerous economists, and numerous energy analysts, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

More than people who have been in the industry their entire lives? I.e., the CEO's of oil companies?

Because they are biased at all.

Do you really think an oil company exec is going to say, "Nah, we don't really need to drill there" or "It probably won't affect prices much and it'll take awhile to feel the effects of drilling"? You have lost your mind if you think that they would be anything but optimistic (sometimes even overly so). That's their job; they won't win contracts and be granted permits otherwise.

I'll stick with the independent agencies and their opinions.

perunapower Wrote:Because they are biased at all.

No, they're biased, into MAKING MONEY. Think they're going to waste a buncha f'n money in a place that has no chance? Just how well do you understand Capitalism?

Quote:Do you really think an oil company exec is going to say, "Nah, we don't really need to drill there" or "It probably won't affect prices much and it'll take awhile to feel the effects of drilling"? You have lost your mind if you think that they would be anything but optimistic (sometimes even overly so). That's their job; they won't win contracts and be granted permits otherwise.

I'll stick with the independent agencies and their opinions.

No, I think an oil exec is going to listen to all reports and authorize drilling in a place that's prone to have oil. Oh, the HORROR!

It's not just drilling a pipe into the ground and "hoping" you strike it rich. This isn't the 1920's.

perunapower Wrote:Because they are biased at all.

Do you really think an oil company exec is going to say, "Nah, we don't really need to drill there" or "It probably won't affect prices much and it'll take awhile to feel the effects of drilling"? You have lost your mind if you think that they would be anything but optimistic (sometimes even overly so). That's their job; they won't win contracts and be granted permits otherwise.

I'll stick with the independent agencies and their opinions.

Unfortunately, your "independent" agencies are just as biased, only in different directions. They aren't truly independent; somebody is paying their bills, and they are just as dependent on that funding source as oil companies are on oil. And in many cases they got their funding in the first place because they brought certain biases to the table, and they found someone with money who shared their biases. A problem with debate in many areas--health care, defense, taxation, and others--is that it's pretty difficult to gain subject-matter expertise without also picking up a lot of biases. That's why the solutions need to be based on consensus, which our increasingly adversarial political system seems no longer capable of delivering.

When you're on either side of a debate, it's easy to see your side's proponents as "objective" and the other side's proponents as "biased." Cuts both ways. The truth generally lies somewhere, not necessarily in between, but including some "truths" from both perspectives.

So, drill here, drill now is not the long-term solution, and certainly the only solution, as some would have us believe. It won't get us back to $2 gasoline. On the other hand it is the quickest and cheapest source of interim relief. It will give us the ability to mitigate future price increases while we work out infrastructure issues with alternative fuels and conservation.

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:Using Shale Oil to make diesel would lower the cost of diesel increasing the demand for diesel vehicles lowering demand for gasoline thus lowering cost of gasoline. Mining coal for use in power plants would lower need for oil fired plants and allow that oil to be used for other purposes as well. Think McFly.

Shale Oil would refine quite well for use as "Home Heating Oil" that is used mainly in the Northeast. Using dedicated Shale refineries would also open up refining capacity along the Gulf Coast to use for gasoline.

About the only places we could refine Shale Oil would be the evil Citgo refineries in Corpus Christi, Houston, and Lake Charles. Its similar to the Venezuelan crude.

Rebel Wrote:No, they're biased, into MAKING MONEY. Think they're going to waste a buncha f'n money in a place that has no chance? Just how well do you understand Capitalism?

No, I think an oil exec is going to listen to all reports and authorize drilling in a place that's prone to have oil. Oh, the HORROR!

That isn't my point. I was saying that oil companies are going to overstate how much oil is in the ground so they get approval to drill there.

I understand how capitalism works, that's why you don't see me saying the oil companies need to use the land they already have because if there was anything there, they would be drilling there already.

Oil companies are going to be optimistic about how much oil is there, how fast they can start production, and how much damage they are going to do to the environment by starting production.

Quote:It's not just drilling a pipe into the ground and "hoping" you strike it rich. This isn't the 1920's.

This is exactly my point. It's not just stick a drill bit in the ground and let 'er rip. It takes exploration for the optimal spot to start drilling, it takes time to get permits, have environmental evaluations, actually drill the hole, and then actually reach peak oil production. It will take the better part of a decade to start production and then a few more months just to get it refined and to the gas pumps.

Even then you are only making a dent into the supply shortfall because world oil consumption is estimated to have risen 37% by 2030 (which if we started drilling in ANWR now would be about the time of peak oil production).

I'm still waiting on you to substantiate your claims with reports and facts.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Unfortunately, your "independent" agencies are just as biased, only in different directions. They aren't truly independent; somebody is paying their bills, and they are just as dependent on that funding source as oil companies are on oil. And in many cases they got their funding in the first place because they brought certain biases to the table, and they found someone with money who shared their biases.

If the EIA isn't independent enough for you, just who is independent enough? Because as far as I know, by law (the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, to be exact), the EIA has to answer to no one to discourage biases in the statistical data.

perunapower Wrote:If the EIA isn't independent enough for you, just who is independent enough? Because as far as I know, by law (the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, to be exact), the EIA has to answer to no one to discourage biases in the statistical data.

ANY group of government bureaucrats are going to be FAR more interested in preserving their own jobs and budgets and powers and perks than in actaually solving any problems. That's particularly true the longer the agency has been around, and this one has been around 30 years or more.

Their biases are ALWAYS going to be in favor of making the problem seem more difficult than it really is, because if we ever found out that we could solve the problem by turning the free market loose, somebody might just decide that we didn't really need THEM.

Edit to Add: Politically, at first blush one would expect that as part of the executive branch they'd tend to lean toward the President. On the other hand, their activities would fall under the purview of the House Committee on Natural Resources, chaired by Rep. Rahall. Given the incredibly bad analysis and extreme biases apparent in his committee staff's recent report on energy, then if any part of that bias is transmitted down to this agency (which is about a 100% certainty since they depend on that committee for funding) that would certainly destroy any presumption of independence or objectivity. They're bureaucrats, I'm sure they're catering to whichever side they think their bread is buttered on, I'm just not sure which one that is.

The answer to who is independent enough for me is NOBODY. There is nobody who comes to the table without bringing their biases with them. Therefore, the answer is not to accept ANYONE's word for it, but to consider all points of view, take each one with a grain of salt (knowing that there is almost always a hidden agenda), and work out what makes the most sense based on what data each person or group brings to the table. The one advantage with data provided by oil companies is that at least we can be pretty certain what the biases are, and accordingly how to discount the information.

perunapower Wrote:That isn't my point. I was saying that oil companies are going to overstate how much oil is in the ground so they get approval to drill there.

I understand how capitalism works, that's why you don't see me saying the oil companies need to use the land they already have because if there was anything there, they would be drilling there already.

Oil companies are going to be optimistic about how much oil is there, how fast they can start production, and how much damage they are going to do to the environment by starting production.

There's a geological reason for estimates of how much oil is potentially there to be high, that has nothing to do with optimism.

Oil exists under virtually every square foot of the earth's surface. What is needed to produce oil is to find those spots where enough of it gathers in one place to make drilling for it economically feasible. So what you look for are things like a place where the subsurface has shifted along a fault line so that soft rock (in which oil can accumulate) is up against hard rock (which acts like a dam), or where there is some feature like a salt dome in which oil can accumulate. When you find one of these, you can measure the size of the potential reservoir from the surface, using geological and geophysical tools. What you can't tell without drilling is whether there actually IS that much oil or gas in the reservoir. So estimates made prior to drilling must be based on the potential size, whereas after drilling you can factor in additional information like whether there actually was anything in the target, and if so the rate of flow and pressure, to determine just how full that potential reservoir is. This is an oversimplification, of course, but not a misleading one.

One implication of the above is that an increase in the price of oil "automatically" increases the volume of recoverable oil reserves in the ground. A reservoir might not have sufficient oil in it to justify production at $20/barrel, but as the price rises then more and more of those reservoirs can be produced economically. So higher prices mean more oil in the ground. Some nonproducing leased acreage typically includes properties where oil and gas have been found, but not in paying quantities (sufficient for the economics to justify production). At current prices, almost all of those will come back into play. It will be interesting to see what happens with them in the coming months.

This is not to discount totally the impact of optimism on the part of the oil companies. Only an eternal optimist can sleep well at night when the business involves taking the kinds of risks that they must take routinely. If they don't get to earn the occasional "windfall" profit, taking those risks becomes less and less attractive. This is something that the typical non-risk-taking bureaucrat will never understand.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:ANY group of government bureaucrats are going to be FAR more interested in preserving their own jobs and budgets and powers and perks than in actaually solving any problems. That's particularly true the longer the agency has been around, and this one has been around 30 years or more.

Their biases are ALWAYS going to be in favor of making the problem seem more difficult than it really is, because if we ever found out that we could solve the problem by turning the free market loose, somebody might just decide that we didn't really need THEM.

I don't think that's the case here, just like I don't think it's the case with the CDC, USGS, or other research-oriented governmental agencies. If you choose not to believe the EIA and USGS studies, well I suppose that's your right, but I don't think these agencies are driven by Congressional agendas.

Edit to Add: Politically, at first blush one would expect that as part of the executive branch they'd tend to lean toward the President.[/quote]

Guessing you didn't the law I was referring to before.

Quote:On the other hand, their activities would fall under the purview of the House Committee on Natural Resources, chaired by Rep. Rahall. Given the incredibly bad analysis and extreme biases apparent in his committee staff's recent report on energy, then if any part of that bias is transmitted down to this agency (which is about a 100% certainty since they depend on that committee for funding) that would certainly destroy any presumption of independence or objectivity. They're bureaucrats, I'm sure they're catering to whichever side they think their bread is buttered on, I'm just not sure which one that is.

I don't think that's the case here. If you're referring to Rahall's "you got 'em, drill 'em" report, then I agree that it was biased (not to mention stupid), but again I don't think that Congressional agendas are being pushed on the EIA and USGS to provide altered statistical data to discourage drilling.

Actually, the EIA sends its budget to the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees for Energy and Water Development which Rep. Rahall is not a member of.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/aboutEIA/budget.html

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:There's a geological reason for estimates of how much oil is potentially there to be high, that has nothing to do with optimism.

So the EIA and USGS are inept because they aren't the ones taking the capital risks? The oil companies aren't going to artificially inflate estimates to boost their chances of scoring a permit? I'm not saying they are adding 10 billion barrels to the estimates, but oil companies are going to be more optimistic than neutral parties are because optimism is good business, especially for a publicly traded one.

I also don't to be taught about how oil is formed and found. There is no need to lecture me on oil exploration and economics.

perunapower Wrote:I don't think that's the case here, just like I don't think it's the case with the CDC, USGS, or other research-oriented governmental agencies. If you choose not to believe the EIA and USGS studies, well I suppose that's your right, but I don't think these agencies are driven by Congressional agendas.

I don't necessarily choose not to believe them, but I don't believe that any of them are capable of putting whatever agenda they have aside long enough to produce any objective work. That's not the way the system works. I choose to believe that there is probably an element of truth to whatever they say, but that we probably aren't being told the whole truth.

I probably take a dimmer view of most governmental agencies than most. But I've spent most of my adult life working for, with, or around many of them, both state and federal, and I have yet to see one that was remotely close to independent or objective. I learned to play their games, and I was able to navigate my clients through successfully, but it's all a game.

In every area of government, we've transferred an incredible amount of power to unaccountable bureaucrats. And most of them see it as a game that they win by maximizing their own power and prestige, rather than actually trying to accomplish their stated objectives.

perunapower Wrote:[So the EIA and USGS are inept because they aren't the ones taking the capital risks? The oil companies aren't going to artificially inflate estimates to boost their chances of scoring a permit? I'm not saying they are adding 10 billion barrels to the estimates, but oil companies are going to be more optimistic than neutral parties are because optimism is good business, especially for a publicly traded one.

I also don't to be taught about how oil is formed and found. There is no need to lecture me on oil exploration and economics.

I don't buy that they're neutral. I'm not saying they're inept, but I am saying that they're biased. At least with the oil companies, I know what the biases are.

If you felt lectured to, I'm sorry. But I'm assuming you're not the only person reading this thread.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the oil companies are more objective or independent than a government agency. But most of us understand that the oil companies have a stake in the outcome, and we can intuitively discount what they say.

All I'm saying is that so-called "independent" or "objective" voices aren't either. In the case of government bureaucrats, they're ALWAYS going to be biased in favor of saving their jobs and growing their budget, headcount, and authority. In most agencies, unfortunately, those objectives take precedence over actually fulfilling their mission. That's not something that most people understand. I've seen it up close and personal, far too many times, and it's not a pretty sight. The worst thing is that people don't understand this, and even those of us who understand that the biases exist don't always know what the biases are, so it's hard to know how and how much to discount what they say.

So I take what the oil companies say with a grain of salt. I take what the Sierra Club (of which I'm a member) or the National Wildlife Federation (of which I'm a member) with a grain of salt, too. And I take what supposedly "independent" or "objective" government agencies say with a grain of salt. And I'll continue to do that.