polksalet Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 How long does it take to locate a pocket of oil, build a rig, drill a hole and pipeline gathering system, and then get it to the refinery? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 That's not even really the issue. All we have to do is start the process, and the price of oil comes down dramatically. All of a sudden, OPEC is looking at losing some of its captive market and they lower prices to make domestic drilling less attractive to us, price-wise. And the speculators aren't going to be willing to buy those large futures with us threatening to bring more on to the market, are they? Uncertainty is risk for them, which translates into lower prices for oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoopazz Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 How long does it take to locate a pocket of oil, build a rig, drill a hole and pipeline gathering system, and then get it to the refinery? Who will pay for it? I'm guessing domestic big oil is fairly comfortable with the current market conditions and profits. ETA, do you really think OPEC and speculators don't know that we don't have the refining capacity for more domestic production, nor the incentives to invest in said capacity? Just sayin'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted August 13, 2008 Author Share Posted August 13, 2008 Who will pay for it? I'm guessing domestic big oil is fairly comfortable with the current market conditions and profits. ETA, do you really think OPEC and speculators don't know that we don't have the refining capacity for more domestic production, nor the incentives to invest in said capacity? Just sayin'... I dont really know much about oil production. I was just curious how long it takes to do all that stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 All the estimates I've seen said it would take 7-10 years if we started drillingin say ANWR or off shore tomorrow. I've heard lower estimates such as two to four years as well but I don't see the impact this would have on prices because it doesn't sound like we will ever be able to domestically produce what we need so I don't know why the threat of increased drilling would lower prices 2-4 years at best down the road anyways. I don't see that scaring OPEC and others at all. An additional problem is supposedly there is not enough oil in these areas to have more than a 2-3% impact on domestic demand. Next is the increasing number of cars in China, India and Mexico causing a massive increase in demand over the next few decades is supposed to further drive up the price of the oil we purchase from foreign nations no matter what we do. Also many of the nations we purchase our oil from do not share the same foreign policy goals as America. Supposedly another big part of the problem is refining capacity but I'm not well versed on this because refining more oil doesn't seem to be long-term thinking anyways, IMHO. Finally, from an environmental standpoint, we may not want to drill our way out even if we could. That's the cliffs notes version as I understand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted August 13, 2008 Author Share Posted August 13, 2008 All the estimates I've seen said it would take 7-10 years if we started drillingin say ANWR or off shore tomorrow. I've heard lower estimates such as two to four years as well but I don't see the impact this would have on prices because it doesn't sound like we will ever be able to domestically produce what we need so I don't know why the threat of increased drilling would lower prices 2-4 years at best down the road anyways. I don't see that scaring OPEC and others at all. An additional problem is supposedly there is not enough oil in these areas to have more than a 2-3% impact on domestic demand. Next is the increasing number of cars in China, India and Mexico causing a massive increase in demand over the next few decades is supposed to further drive up the price of the oil we purchase from foreign nations no matter what we do. Also many of the nations we purchase our oil from do not share the same foreign policy goals as America. Supposedly another big part of the problem is refining capacity but I'm not well versed on this because refining more oil doesn't seem to be long-term thinking anyways, IMHO. Finally, from an environmental standpoint, we may not want to drill our way out even if we could. That's the cliffs notes version as I understand it. why would it take 10 years to drill in ANWR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 why would it take 10 years to drill in ANWR? The equipment is so heavy the can only work when its really cold and the ice is stable. And, just as a point of clarification, its estimated that it would take 5-10 years from the start of the project to the point of refinement. So it's not exactly 10 years just to drill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 All of a sudden, OPEC is looking at losing some of its captive market and they lower prices Opec does not set it's prices. As far as I know, they did what they could to increase production... but traders are keeping the price high because they know oil won't last forever. The only thing that lowered oil prices was when we actually started using less oil. (Technically, worldwide we merely slowed our growth of oil consumption, but in the US, we actually used less) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 why would it take 10 years to drill in ANWR? Watch Ice Road Truckers. Like yo said, I think logistically, it isn't a year round operation. But if there are 68,000,000 acres of land the oil companies are currently leasing that they aren't drilling on, why do the need those additional acres? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted August 13, 2008 Author Share Posted August 13, 2008 Watch Ice Road Truckers. Like yo said, I think logistically, it isn't a year round operation. But if there are 68,000,000 acres of land the oil companies are currently leasing that they aren't drilling on, why do the need those additional acres? maybe it is like hydropower, would it be easier to create a lake in the gobi desert or in the amazon? Maybe they already know where the oil is anwr is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted August 13, 2008 Author Share Posted August 13, 2008 The equipment is so heavy the can only work when its really cold and the ice is stable. And, just as a point of clarification, its estimated that it would take 5-10 years from the start of the project to the point of refinement. So it's not exactly 10 years just to drill. so where they would drill in anwr is like on ice road truckers where they are set up on an iceberg? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 so where they would drill in anwr is like on ice road truckers where they are set up on an iceberg? That's the way I imagine it, but I've never seen pictures or anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted August 13, 2008 Author Share Posted August 13, 2008 That's the way I imagine it, but I've never seen pictures or anything. its not like that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 (edited) Watch Ice Road Truckers. Like yo said, I think logistically, it isn't a year round operation. But if there are 68,000,000 acres of land the oil companies are currently leasing that they aren't drilling on, why do the need those additional acres? I'd imagine someone projects higher profit margins, is all. Either that, or its just a mad land grab in an effort to secure legal rights now even though drilling might not occur until years later. Edited August 13, 2008 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 its not like that I didn't mean to imply that the rig was positioned atop an ice berg. Only that the ice wasn't stable enough 12 months out of the year for heavy equipment to traverse back and forth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted August 13, 2008 Author Share Posted August 13, 2008 I didn't mean to imply that the rig was positioned atop an ice berg. Only that the ice wasn't stable enough 12 months out of the year for heavy equipment to traverse back and forth. Not an expert here but it seems reasonable that if we can set an oil rig stable on the ocean floor, build a pipe through the ocean, and fly personnel back and forth on choppers tot he offshore rigs that we could pull the same off in the tundra, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I'd imagine someone projects higher profit margins, is all. I think that's exactly it - more oil in one spot that's easier (less expensive) to get at. People keep talking about all of these thousands of acres already under lease - these lands/waters do have oil in them, but they are smaller pockets and more expensive to develop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 I believe ANWR is pretty wide open tundra - not ice at all. I believe the proposed drilling site is about the size of an airport or less than 1% of the refuge including roads and pipeline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 All the estimates I've seen said it would take 7-10 years if we started drillingin say ANWR or off shore tomorrow. You need to research more, this is not 1964. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 maybe it is like hydropower, would it be easier to create a lake in the gobi desert or in the amazon? Maybe they already know where the oil is anwr is? http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images...icas_energy.pdf That's where Obama get's his #s from. This information has been available for what, two weeks? I haven't been able to find any dispute of these numbers. The numbers come from the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management. Look at the gaudy numbers in the report that nobody is disputing. And again, if opening up ANWR and more offshore locations would only cover 2-3% of domestic use, what good does it do? A few cents off of a gallon at best. And why shouldn't those 68,000,000 acres at least be used first? I would hope that everyon who said opening up the strategic reserves for emergency purposes only would also agree that big oil should drill the 68,000,000 acres it already has available, no? Again, if the ultimate objective is to become functional without foreign oil no matter what the reason (environmental, nation security or both), what does drilling in ANWR do to further that objective? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 You need to research more, this is not 1964. If I though it were 1964, I'd be advocating trying to drill our way out of the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/images...icas_energy.pdf That's where Obama get's his #s from. This information has been available for what, two weeks? I haven't been able to find any dispute of these numbers. The numbers come from the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management. Look at the gaudy numbers in the report that nobody is disputing. And again, if opening up ANWR and more offshore locations would only cover 2-3% of domestic use, what good does it do? A few cents off of a gallon at best. And why shouldn't those 68,000,000 acres at least be used first? I would hope that everyon who said opening up the strategic reserves for emergency purposes only would also agree that big oil should drill the 68,000,000 acres it already has available, no? Again, if the ultimate objective is to become functional without foreign oil no matter what the reason (environmental, nation security or both), what does drilling in ANWR do to further that objective? That article makes a poor assumption - that all oil and gas deposits are equally expensive to extract. This is a large part of the equation that is often overlooked. I've got no problem repealing subsidies for oil and NG or even requiring oil and gas extracted from federal leases be sold only domestically. I do think politicians need to stop forming their energy policies based on lobby contributions or party objectives. That's what got us into this mess in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 That article makes a poor assumption - that all oil and gas deposits are equally expensive to extract. This is a large part of the equation that is often overlooked. I've got no problem repealing subsidies for oil and NG or even requiring oil and gas extracted from federal leases be sold only domestically. I do think politicians need to stop forming their energy policies based on lobby contributions or party objectives. That's what got us into this mess in the first place. It's a congressional report using data from the Department of Interior and Bureau of Land Management. But if it is just a matter of ANWR being more profitable to Exxon than the other 68,000,000 acres it has available to it, that doesn't strike me as an emergency that would warrant opening the land up. What energy policies do you want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 It's a congressional report using data from the Department of Interior and Bureau of Land Management. But if it is just a matter of ANWR being more profitable to Exxon than the other 68,000,000 acres it has available to it, that doesn't strike me as an emergency that would warrant opening the land up. What energy policies do you want? It's a congressional report (like that should mean something to us) that speaks only of land under lease vs. what is not under lease and speculates a few other things. It does not address the profitability of any of the lands in question. There can be a cast cost difference between one oil field to the next. I think the emergency is that it does take a number of years to develop the solid resources we do have. Some are speculating that the world oil supply will be in more serious trouble 7-10 years from now and if we do nothing now, we'll be screwed then and resources llke ANWR, the outer continental shelf, clean coal and oil shale/sands will do us no good. Alternative energy will not be ready to replace oil and NG in that time, so I think it makes some sense to develop what we have, even if we just install the necessary infrastructure and then cap the wells. That's not going to interest the oil companies though, we'd have to pay billions for that - but at least it'd be there and somewhat ready. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaumont Posted August 13, 2008 Share Posted August 13, 2008 Its not like there are a lot of unused offshore rigs floating around. Or a bunch of companies ready to jump in and build massive amounts of pipeline to move oil. Lease acquisition. Roads. Seismic testing. Geological study. Pipeline capacity. Actual drilling. This takes a lot of time to establish. Hell, give an oil company a new lease in East Texas that has already been shot and studied 3 times and they will still take 3 years to pierce the ground in the first location ... subsequent wells in the area go up at a nice, slow rate, depending on the results of the first wells. Things just dont move that fast in the oil patch ... its too damn expensive to drill to do it fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.