Start Drilling!

mulp · #**111** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef

Over the past 30 years:

Which party blocked the development of new sources of petroleum?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling in ANWR?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the coast of Florida?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the east coast?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the west coast?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast?-- Democrat
Which party blocked building oil refineries?-- Democrat
Which party blocked clean nuclear energy production?-- Democrat
Which party blocked clean coal production?-- Democrat

Oh, yeah, those Democrats just wouldn't pay the oil companies enough to extract oil and gas from public lands. For three decades Exxon has been waiting for both the Feds and the State of Alaska to subsidize the extraction of oil from their lease right next to ANWR. How can a US oil company be expected to invest and take risks if the government doesn't make sure that they have huge profits, even if they hired drunks to operate the equipment and destroy the environment, Exxon's equipment. Why it is totally unfair for Democrats to expect any US corporation to operate in a free market. The Republicans appreciate the needs of corporations and would eliminate all risk to their profits.

And the Democrats wouldn't pay the energy utilities enough to subsidize the operations of the really cheap nuclear power, forcing them to pay to build the plants and pay for insurance from the harm that the plants might cause, and then keep the plants safe. Only Republicans are willing to put taxpayer money to work for corporation profits.

And it is clearly the fault of the Democrats that Reagan oversaw the development of all sorts of new oil fields in the US in order for the US to become energy independent, and then forced the oil companies to double oil imports.

It was the Democrats that forced the oil companies to shutdown 120 of 300 oil refineries during the Reagan-Bush years because the Democrats wouldn't pay to have light Texas crude imported and injected into the Texas oil fields that those refineries needed.

And it is the fault of the Democrats that the oil fields in Mexico are running out.

And it is the fault of the Democrats that the oil from Venezuala is high sulfer heavy crude that requires expensive refinery upgrades to process.

And it is the fault of the Democrats that oil and gas fields run out.

And it is the fault of the Democrats that the US isn't located in the Persian Gulf where two-thirds of the world's oil is.

And as McCain's spiritual advisor would say, its the Democrats sins and homosexuality that caused God to punish America by putting the oil McCain needs in lands controlled by Arabs camel jockeys.

mulp · #**112** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DammitBoy!

Is there anybody here who understands that we use oil for many, many things besides producing fuel?

It doesn't matter if you switch all energy away from fossil fuels, it doesn't matter if we run everything an alternative fuels.

We will still need billions of barrels of oil to produce, roads, roofs, everything plastic, your tires, and a million other products.

We need to drill for oil in the U.S. if soley to eliminate our mideast fuel consumption.

Yes we should pursue every viable alternate fuel and energy source out there - but we'll still need oil.

Two billion barrels a year should suffice to meet the US needs.

Carson · #**113** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tileman

I heard another *Go Green* person the other day say- "We need to have every be 100% electric and not drill anymore natural gas wells"...

The ignorance is epidemic. I asked them if they knew where our electricity came from. They thought and thought and thought and finally said- "From tons of sources but I'm not sure where ours comes from". I said- It comes from natural gas... lol

don't act like thats a good answer, a shitload of it comes from nuclear and hydroelectric plants as well

Realist1 · #**114** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. Crowley

Arabs are not our enemies.

Nor are Persians.

Just the Islamic Assholes, such as you?

Carson · #**115** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Realist1

Just the Islamic Assholes, such as you?

nor the islamic people, but cowardley is definitely a piece of shit

RAIDER56 · #**116** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

In 1982, soon after Reagan was elected, the number of refineries in the US was 301.

In the next decade, 120 refineries were shutdown and dismantled; that's one refinery dismantled per month for Reagan and Bush.

During the Clinton administration, the number closed dropped to less than three a year.

During Dubya's administration, one refinery per year has been dismantled, and today there are only 149 refineries.

Why would Congress need to block building refineries when the oil industry is dismantling them because they are not competitive and are losing money?

As far blocking drilling, explain why Exxon hasn't developed the Thomson Point field that is right outside ANWR? They have had that lease for three decades, filed and then abandoned more than 25 development plans. When Alaska revoked the lease, Exxon is suing to get it back, promising that it will actually implement their 27th development plan, bringing the field into production by 2014.

I'm sure that the Exxon management sees the Thomson Point lease, and I'm sure others as well, as being worth more if the are listed as assets for the stockholders, and not developed so that Exxon keeps showing that it has oil reserves for the future.

Besides, why develop oil in Alaska where Exxon would be forced to pay the State a big share of the huge profits they would get, when they can extract from Louisiana which is prohibited by Federal law from taxing the oil produced there.

The Bush family in the story of oil is telling. Bush the elder went to the House of Saud begging for them to pump more oil to drive down the price during the 80s. In the 90s, Bush the elder went to the House of Saud begging for them to cut back production to drive up the price of oil because US oil producers were losing money big time. Then this year, Bush the dumber went to the House of Saud begging for them to pump more oil to drive down the price of oil.

But again, the capitalists were so smart in the 90s when they laid off all the oil engineers, all the oil technicians, sold off all the oil rigs, and basically shutdown most drilling in the US and really cut deep into drilling capacity. Drilling is required even for already developed fields to maximize production over the long term, but that is costly, and in the 90s the oil companies stopped reworking the fields in order to increase profits. This century, the people and equipment is in short supply, so reworking the existing fields and expanding them is slowed as new people are trained and equipment acquired. But hey, capitalists know that people are all interchangable and just a commodity; if the Bush immigration train hadn't been derailed, the capitalists would just bring Chinese coolie oil engineers who would work harder and cheaper. Bush betrayed by Pat Buchanon.

I dont know where you got your info.but I do know Bush 2 has been fighting congress for more drilling(anwar) and exploration,which has been blocked
for years .He also has been calling for construction of new refineries.
The impact in Anwar would be minimal
It definately is about money.Standard oil pulled the plug on drilling on
my cousins ranch in Montana when the price of crude dropped in the 80's
Said they would return when prices jumped

areyoushittin'me? · #**117** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAIDER56

The impact in Anwar would be minimal...

Quite true...less than a three year supply.

DammitBoy! · #**118** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

Quite true...less than a three year supply.

It's not meant to be a sole supply of oil. All we should be considering is can it help eliminate the 12% of our oil that comes from the mid-east.

That's step one. Get rid of mideast oil importation through alternate venues.

While working on every other alternative energy source and system.

And anwar isn't the only viable field out there - the bakken fields and others would help eliminate our dependence on arab oil.

mulp · #**119** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAIDER56

I dont know where you got your info.but I do know Bush 2 has been fighting congress for more drilling(anwar) and exploration,which has been blocked
for years .He also has been calling for construction of new refineries.
The impact in Anwar would be minimal
It definately is about money.Standard oil pulled the plug on drilling on
my cousins ranch in Montana when the price of crude dropped in the 80's
Said they would return when prices jumped

Bush has been making many statements and claims. For example, he has claimed to have cut taxes and made government smaller, and so on, but an article on mises.org a conservative-libertarian "think tank" on economic policy along the "Austrian school" said this:
Bush has NOT cut taxes - Mark Brandly - Mises Institute

Quote:

Bush should not be credited with cutting our tax burdens. He has engaged in tax shifting and in hiding the burdens of his expansions of the welfare and warfare state, and he has demonstrated that he's opposed to lowering our tax burdens. Deep into his second term, we have plenty of evidence to show that Bush should be blamed for increasing our tax burdens at a phenomenal pace.

The Republican Party claims to be the party of limited government and economic freedom. Don't believe it. Republicans have shown that when they are in power they are even more fiscally irresponsible than their Democratic counterparts, and that takes some doing.

So, that is a conservative-liberatarian analysis of what Bush says and does.

In other words, Bush is basically feeding you a load of crap.

Now here is the info on Thomson Point, where Exxon was granted an oil lease three decades ago:

State rejects Exxon's Point Thomson plan: Top Stories | adn.com

Quote:

State rejects Exxon's Point Thomson plan

DORMANT FIELD: Oil firm's commitment to drilling "too risky."

By WESLEY LOY
wloy@adn.com

Published: April 23rd, 2008 12:10 AM
Last Modified: April 23rd, 2008 11:51 AM

Exxon Mobil Corp. can't be trusted to keep its latest promise to develop a huge North Slope oil and gas field that's lain dormant since its discovery decades ago, a top state official decided Tuesday.

The decision denying Exxon's proposed development plan means the fate of Point Thomson -- which figures prominently in plans for a proposed natural gas pipeline -- remains bound up in state court.

Exxon, the top leaseholder in the 106,201-acre field, in February offered a $1.3 billion drilling plan in hopes of halting the state's legal effort to break up the field and possibly lease the acreage to other companies.

Exxon managers touted the plan as an "unconditional commitment" to start producing from the field.

But in a 78-page decision issued Tuesday, state Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Irwin sternly rejected Exxon's development plan -- its 23rd over the years -- saying the company and other leaseholders repeatedly broke past commitments and have engaged in "a constant shell game" for more than two decades.

Irwin, who presided over a court-ordered hearing on the plan in March, questioned the credibility of oil company executives who testified and concluded that allowing the companies "another opportunity to delay development of this valuable state resource is too risky."

Exxon and other Point Thomson leaseholders have 20 days to ask Irwin to reconsider. Then the matter moves back into state Superior Court.

Exxon spokesmen asserted Irwin's decision essentially locks the company's drilling rig out of the field, where Exxon vowed to start work on up to five wells and employ 200 people this winter.

"We're surprised and extremely disappointed," Exxon said in a written statement. "We plan to appeal this action and will pursue all alternatives to protect our rights to develop these resources."

Exxon added that it believes Irwin "has no legal basis" to break up the field's leases and that doing so will lead to years more conflict in court.

Steve Rinehart, a spokesman for BP, the second-largest Point Thomson leaseholder, said his company also was disappointed and that Irwin's decision could delay a natural gas pipeline.

Point Thomson is located on the Beaufort Sea coast next to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, about 60 miles east of the giant Prudhoe Bay oil field.

It holds an estimated 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- about a quarter of the Slope's known 35 trillion cubic feet. It also holds several hundred million barrels of crude oil and a liquid form of natural gas known as condensate.

Development of the field would mean huge tax and royalty revenues for the state.

Exxon drilling led to discovery of Point Thomson's gas and oil reserves in 1977. But the company hasn't developed the field because of the lack of a gas pipeline and the field's extreme subsurface pressure, which would require tougher, costlier wells to control, Exxon managers say.

Irwin, in his decision, said Exxon and other leaseholders have looked to "warehouse" Point Thomson while concentrating on projects elsewhere in the world.

Because of its rich natural gas reserves, Point Thomson is considered a vital piece of any pipeline plan to ship gas to the Lower 48 or abroad.

Two pipeline proposals are now on the table -- one from Calgary-based TransCanada Corp. and another from a partnership of Conoco Phillips and BP.

Exxon, which isn't part of either pipeline proposal, told the state when it submitted its latest development plan in February that it would pledge its share of Point Thomson gas to a pipeline project so long as it received terms as good as those of other companies with gas to ship.

But Exxon's plan didn't impress Irwin.

He said its $1.3 billion proposal to produce 10,000 barrels a day of gas condensate beginning in 2014 -- a small amount in the context of total North Slope production now averaging 750,000 barrels a day -- was a "modest" step to exploit a hugely valuable field.

Anyway, Irwin wrote, Exxon and other Point Thomson leaseholders can't be trusted to keep their word. He noted, for example, that the latest plan of development has a loophole giving Exxon an out based on "permitting delays."

"Approval of this plan merely serves as an invitation for Exxon Mobil to abandon this project under the guise of permitting delays or denials," Irwin wrote.

Find Wesley Loy online at adn.com/contact/wloy or call 257-4590.

As for refineries:
U.S. Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Count)

Quote:

U.S. Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Count)

Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9
1980's 301 258 247 223 216 219 213 204
1990's 205 202 199 187 179 175 NA 164 NA 159
2000's 158 155 153 149 149 148 149 149

So, it is clear that the oil industry didn't see a need for more refineries, but instead a need for fewer refineries. Bush took office when 155 refineries were operable and today only 149 are operable, continuing a trend of decline that was most rapid during the Reagan years, which might be explained by the decline in oil consumption as energy efficiency measure enacted by Carter, Ford, and Nixon took effect, but by the time Bush and Clinton came to office, the consumption of oil was rising rapidly. Still, the number of refineries continued to decline.

Clearly the only reason Bush is talking the need for Congress to build new refineries is that he has some business partners who he would direct tax dollar to so they can build a refineries with taxpayer dollar and then sell it for a capital gains profit, just as Bush did before with a tax payer built sports stadium.

So, you have Bush's claims which are contrary to the facts, and his reputation of being consistently wrong on the facts, and consistently failing to deliver on promises.

How about making an argument based on actual facts that you can substantiate? Be sure to provide your sources.....

mulp · #**120** (**permalink**) 05-09-2008, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DammitBoy!

It's not meant to be a sole supply of oil. All we should be considering is can it help eliminate the 12% of our oil that comes from the mid-east.

That's step one. Get rid of mideast oil importation through alternate venues.

While working on every other alternative energy source and system.

And anwar isn't the only viable field out there - the bakken fields and others would help eliminate our dependence on arab oil.

Oil is fungible, so it doesn't matter where the US gets its oil, the price and supply of oil that the US uses is determined by the entire oil output of every nation that Bush has declared an enemy of the US, every nation that has decided that based on Bush they will define the US as their enemy, and every nation that doesn't give a damn either way, but wants to extract as much profit from its oil as they can, and the more the US pays the better, and the House of Saud that is looking to the future and saying "why should we sell our oil cheaply today when we can selling it for lots more in a decade or two?"

Oil and gas and coal will still have value as necessities a thousand years from now, so they will always have value. In fact, they will remain always essential for industry, at least until the earth's crust is depleted by man of all useful metals.

Refining even aluminum, the most common metal in the crust, requires carbon for the electrode so that the oxygen in the aluminum ore can be transferred from the aluminum to the carbon, even tho all the energy is from the electricity. Refining steel requires carbon to capture the oxygen, and also to provide the energy.

Oil and gas likewise provide the essential building blocks for many organic compounds like plastics, polymers, and coatings, and while plants can provide such building blocks, their organic complexity is too diverse, and generally include too much oxygen to provide the high quality polymers that we depend on.

While it is certainly possible to reduce plant organics in order to create exact replacements for the output of oil and coal processing, the costs are significant. On the other hand, burning plant organics for power purposes actually benefits from the added oxygen bound up in the organics.

So, keeping the oil and coal in the ground is a good thing if you believe that the US is the greatest and you want it to be the greatest nation in history.

On the other hand, if you relish the history of the downfall of the Roman Empire and other great but fallen empires and nations, then perhaps depleting the fossil organics from the earth's crust is the way to ensure your place in history as one of the reasons the US became a failed and fallen former world power.

Of course, that is the place in history that Bush seems to be seeking. How else can you explain his efforts to create a crushing burden of debt on future generations?