Analysis: More drilling doesn't lower gasoline prices

[Powerboss]

We don't have enough oil reserves to significantly alter global oil prices for a long period of time. If you drill oil out of the ground in Tejas, you're going to sell it for the same price that they're charging in Saudi, unless you want to start a price war, which would tank your own company. We don't have enough to flood the market for a prolonged period.

Sorry to destroy your Baraka fed talking point but that's just another lie.

Scarce Oil? U.S. Has 60 Times More Than Obama Claims

At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered, according to the government's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

About 24 billion barrels in shale deposits in the lower 48 states, according to EIA.

Up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska's North Slope, says the U.S. Geological Survey.

Up to 12 billion barrels in ANWR, according to the USGS.

As much as 19 billion barrels in the Utah tar sands, according to the Bureau of Land Management.

Then, there's the massive Green River Formation in Wyoming, which according to the USGS contains a stunning 1.4 trillion barrels of oil shale — a type of oil released from sedimentary rock after it's heated.

A separate Rand Corp. study found that about 800 billion barrels of oil shale in Wyoming and neighboring states is "technically recoverable," which means it could be extracted using existing technology. That's more than triple the known reserves in Saudi Arabia.

All told, the U.S. has access to 400 billion barrels of crude that could be recovered using existing drilling technologies, according to a 2006 Energy Department report.

When you include oil shale, the U.S. has 1.4 trillion barrels of technically recoverable oil, according to the Institute for Energy Research, enough to meet all U.S. oil needs for about the next 200 years, without any imports.

And even this number could be low, since such estimates tend to go up over time.

Back in 1995, for example, the USGS figured there were 151 million barrels of oil in North Dakota's Bakken formation. In 2008, it upped that estimate to 3 billion barrels to 4.3 billion barrels — a 25-fold increase. Now, some oil analysts say there could be as much as 20 billion barrels there.

And USGS in 2002 quadrupled its oil estimate in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve.

http://news.investors.com/article/60...ted-states.htm

Additionally, 10 years ago when you clowns were saying "it will take 10 years for us to develop it" as an argument against drilling in ANWR, well, it's been 10 years and we could really use that supply now.

Drilling in the US would mean that crooks in the US pocket the cash, rather than crooks in Saudi Arabia, but that's kind of irrelevant. These guys aren't altruists who want to help the struggling American worker.

Ah yes, the evil big business strawman.

Simple economics dictates something that never changes: They're going to charge whatever the market will bear (and that's about $106.99/bbl right now. Doesn't matter where it comes from.)

Yes and if there is a massive amount of supply, which I've shown that exists, outstripping demand, prices will have to drop. The sooner we get started the better. It's simple economics.

[kellyb]

Ah yes, the evil big business strawman.

That's a misuse of the term strawman, and Big Oil really is that bad.

[BooRadley]

We have 2% of the known oil reserves. You think we can flood the market to a point that there's consistent and significant reductions in global oil prices?

Bullshit. That's not enough of a supply hike to significantly alter end prices. We've increased production 15% since early 2009, but prices doubled. Why?

[Powerboss]

That's a misuse of the term strawman, and Big Oil really is that bad.

I have no love for "big oil" but I don't approach it in an emotional fashion like most do. They are in business to make a profit. Have they done bad things? Yep. Should they be held accountable? Yep. They've cleaned up their act over the past several decades. Regardless, the biggest profiteers off of oil is the Federal Government. And this is irrelevant, if the market is flooded with oil prices will decrease.

We have 2% of the known oil reserves.

Amazing! I just posted the facts regarding that bit of dishonesty. 2% only accounts for what is currently being drilled for and does not include all the other oil we know exists as shown in the article posted in my previous post.

You think we can flood the market to a point that there's consistent and significant reductions in global oil prices?

Bullshit. That's not enough of a supply hike to significantly alter end prices.

We have enough oil in our own ground to supply ourselves for at least 200 years.

We've increased production 15% since early 2009,

And none of the credit goes to Obama. The increase in production is a result of existing contracts made by Clinton and Bush. I've already posted this stuff in other threads. Don't you pay attention?

SPIN: “Oil production last year rose to its highest level since 2003.”

RINSE:

The Obama Administration’s actions have caused domestic energy production to decrease.

In 2007, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected total 2010 U.S. oil production on federal lands to be 850 million barrels. Today’s actual production on federal lands is 714 million barrels, a 16 percent decline from what was projected. If it wasn’t for the Obama Administration, the U.S. would be producing more energy.

This is why FUTURE projections show a decline in U.S. production and an increase in imports. On March 8, 2011 the EIA published new projections that show a decline in total U.S. crude oil production of 110,000 barrels per day in 2011 and 130,000 barrels per day in 2012.

Finally, the White House does not explain that the vast majority of increased production is occurring on private lands, not public. For example, North Dakota alone produced almost 120 million barrels of oil in 2010, compared to just over 20 million in 2003. The majority of North Dakota’s production is on private land. This begs the question, why are we not using our federal lands to create American jobs and produce American energy resources to lower prices?

SPIN: “Onshore oil production from public lands has also increased over the last year, from 109 million barrels in 2009 to 114 million barrels in 2010.”

RINSE:

The slight increase in onshore production from federal lands is due to lease sales approved by previous Administrations—not the Obama Administration.

Since taking office, the Obama Administration has slowed onshore energy development on public lands and issued fewer leases.

In 2008 there were 2,416 new oil and natural gas leases issued on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land spanning 2.6 million acres. In 2010, under the Obama Administration, the number of new leases issued dropped to 1,308 and acres leased dropped to 1.3 million.

The total onshore acreage leased under the Obama Administration in 2009 and 2010 are the lowest in over two decades, stretching back to at least 1984.

SPIN: “From 2008 to 2010, oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf increased more than a third – from 446 million barrels in 2008 to an [sic] more than 600 million barrels of estimated production in 2010.”

RINSE:

Once again, the Obama Administration is attempting to take credit for actions they had nothing to do with. The strong production in the Gulf was due to leases issued in 1996-2000 under the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act – long before President Obama took office.

The Obama Administration’s actions, such as imposing a de facto moratorium, are causing energy production to decline in the Gulf of Mexico. EIA shows a 300,000 barrel per day decline in current Gulf production and a projected Gulf decline of over 150 million barrels of oil in 2012.

http://naturalresources.house.gov/Ne...umentID=228625

but prices doubled. Why?

Holy Shit! Are you dense?

[antiquity]

Haha. Same here. So what do you suggest we do? It's an important resource that is in the national good to have lots and lots of, and oil companies are scum -- no better than the government, and less accountable. Is there a third way?

You want something simple to lower gas prices in the US.....One: put an export tax on all exported oil. Two: When we reach the point of producing more oil than we import and control our own prices the price of oil world wide will drop.

[antiquity]

We can put a man on the moon, but not run an oil company?

And....we haven't been back since.

[antiquity]

Demand.

Speculation

[antiquity]

We have 2% of the known oil reserves. You think we can flood the market to a point that there's consistent and significant reductions in global oil prices?

Bullshit. That's not enough of a supply hike to significantly alter end prices. We've increased production 15% since early 2009, but prices doubled. Why?

Lack of an energy policy by this administration.

[optimus]

The solution:

[antiquity]

The solution:

I have no problem with that solution, but if I recall right this has been tried before and it went no where. You would think Obama would invest another stimulus into such projects, what is holding him back....big oil donations, maybe.

[BooRadley]

We have enough oil in our own ground to supply ourselves for at least 200 years.

Oh, good lord. That's bizarre, but the rest of your post is just you copy/pasting stupid bullshit that attacks strawmen:

And none of the credit goes to Obama. The increase in production is a result of existing contracts made by Clinton and Bush. I've already posted this stuff in other threads. Don't you pay attention?

How did you fail to notice the irrelevance of that? Who gives a fuck why oil production increased? It did, and prices doubled. You completely failed to address the point and instead attacked a straman. As usual. Probably not on purpose, though.

The rest of your post is also strawmen:

[i]SPIN: \u201cOil production last year rose to its highest level since 2003.\u201d

RINSE:

The Obama Administration\u2019s actions have caused domestic energy production to decrease.

In 2007, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected total 2010 U.S. oil production on federal lands to be 850 million barrels. Today\u2019s actual production on federal lands

You're trying to argue against a rise in all oil production by arguing about some oil production (on federal lands). You probably didn't notice that whoever you're copy/pasting from did that, because you probably failed compeltely to comprehend it.

As usual.

SPIN: \u201cOnshore oil production from public lands has also increased over the last year, from 109 million barrels in 2009 to 114 million barrels in 2010.\u201d

RINSE:

The slight increase in onshore production from federal lands is due to lease sales approved by previous Administrations\u2014not the Obama Administration.

Again, so what, it increased. How are you proving that it didn't increase by saying that it increased . . . but not because of the President? Do you even attempt to think this shit through before you regurgitate it?

SPIN: \u201cFrom 2008 to 2010, oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf increased more than a third \u2013 from 446 million barrels in 2008 to an [sic] more than 600 million barrels of estimated production in 2010.\u201d

RINSE:

Once again, the Obama Administration is attempting to take credit for actions they had nothing to do with. The strong production in the Gulf was due to leases issued in 1996-2000 under the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act \u2013 long before President Obama took office.

AGAIN: Oil production INCREASED, regardless of who gets credit for it, yet prices also doubled.

Holy Shit! Are you dense?

Well, someone here sure as hell is.

Now, after all that ranting and raving, you still completely failed to address the actual point.

As usual.

[optimus]

I have no problem with that solution, but if I recall right this has been tried before and it went no where. You would think Obama would invest another stimulus into such projects, what is holding him back....big oil donations, maybe.

What was tried before?

[antiquity]

You just confirmed my suspicion that you are a complete moron. The title of the video you posted was about cars that run on water, was it not.

[Powerboss]

The solution:

If it's the solution, why isn't it on the market yet?

Oh, good lord. That's bizarre, but the rest of your post is just you copy/pasting stupid bullshit that attacks strawmen:

What strawmen? The reality is that if we have the supply then the price will drop. Again, basic economics which you still don't seem to grasp.



[How did you fail to notice the irrelevance of that? Who gives a fuck why oil production increased?[/quote]

Because your Master is out there bragging about it like he had something to do with it. He didn't. If it weren't for him production would be higher.

It did, and prices doubled. You completely failed to address the point and instead attacked a straman. As usual. Probably not on purpose, though.

Actually, I already answered that question a long time ago. You completely failed to read and comprehend.

The rest of your post is also strawmen:



You're trying to argue against a rise in all oil production by arguing about some oil production (on federal lands). You probably didn't notice that whoever you're copy/pasting from did that, because you probably failed compeltely to comprehend it.

I'm not arguing against a rise, I'm simply pointing out the facts; Despite Baraka's getting in the way and reducing drilling on Federal lands, production has increased on private lands.

Again, so what, it increased. How are you proving that it didn't increase by saying that it increased . . . but not because of the President? Do you even attempt to think this shit through before you regurgitate it?

These are obviously too complex for you to grasp. Let me help you.
Drilling has increased on private lands.
The slight uptick in drilling is a result of other Presidents approving the drilling. This President is issuing fewer permits.

Got it?

AGAIN: Oil production INCREASED, regardless of who gets credit for it, y

Why is Baraka out there making it sound like he's doing something to alleviate the cost of fuel? He's attempting to take credit for other PResidents work.

Yet prices also doubled.

This has been already addressed.
Supply / Demand. Until the supply is high enough, it will not affect demand.

Let me help you out again.

Lets say we have 100 people dying of thirst and only 1 vendor with 10 bottles of water.
The water would sell at a premium wouldn't it?
Now lets say 5 other vendors come along and each has 25 bottles of water, and yet one more vendor with a water truck full of water ready and waiting to resupply the empty water bottles. Do you think that the selling price of the water will drop?

SUPPLY has to exceed DEMAND and even though production is slightly up, it's not nearly enough or near what it could be if we chose to drill for all the resources that we know to exist.

Well, someone here sure as hell is.

Now, after all that ranting and raving, you still completely failed to address the actual point.

As usual.

Actually, every ridiculous bleating you've made has been refuted thoroughly. Stop whining and admit you don't know anything about economics. Then apologize to the forum members for lying to them and posting bullshit propaganda.

[BooRadley]

How did you fail to notice the irrelevance of that? Who gives a fuck why oil production increased?

Because your Master is out there bragging about it like he had something to do with it. He didn't. If it weren't for him production would be higher.

I'm not arguing against a rise, I'm simply pointing out the facts; Despite Baraka's getting in the way and reducing drilling on Federal lands, production has increased on private lands.

Why is Baraka out there making it sound like he's doing something to alleviate the cost of fuel? He's attempting to take credit for other PResidents work.

You keep getting sidetracked and arguing points I'm not making. (That's what a 'straman' is, since you recently said you don't know what the word means, even though you throw it out constantly). Why can't you stop doing that? What's wrong with your brain? None of that has anything at all to do with the topic. Do you not comprehend that? Does rational or logical thinking seem a mystery to you?

As for your numbers, you're including assumptions about oil that hasn't even been discovered, let alone proven recoverable. You're also including oil shale, that's not currently recoverable in any cost-effective commercial way. You're assuming that the cost of mass-extraction of oil from oil shale will be inexpensive enough to challenge primary extraction from oil rich nations. That's a pretty insane assumption.

If you subtract the unrecoverable and unproven reserves from your magical number, you start to come back to the real world.

Now, there are some interesting experimental techniques for extracting shale oil, but they're not in use yet. I think I posted a thread recently about it. If they are cheap and viable, that will someday in the future bring our reserves closer to the numbers you're pretending are real. Until then, you're just a tard copy/pasting bullshit. As usual.

By the way, the Bush Admin was made up completely of Oil Industry insiders. Why, when they controlled both houses of the Congress and the White House, do you think they never suddenly produced enough oil to flood the market in the way you imagine is possible?

[9ball8]

Sorry to destroy your Baraka fed talking point but that's just another lie.

[i]Scarce Oil? U.S. Has 60 Times More Than Obama Claims

At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered, ...
When you include oil shale, the U.S. has 1.4 trillion barrels of technically recoverable oil, according to the Institute for Energy Research, enough to meet all U.S. oil needs for about the next 200 years, without any imports.

And even this number could be low, since such estimates tend to go up over time.
...
Yes and if there is a massive amount of supply, which I've shown that exists, outstripping demand, prices will have to drop. The sooner we get started the better. It's simple economics.

Here's one link that could steer the debate in a more relevant direction: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...y-falters.html
quote: "Worldwide demand will rise by 1.2 percent to 89.3 million barrels a day this year and by 1.6 percent to 90.7 million next year" (2012). So, the question is: If the world uses an average of 100 million barrels per day, and the US produces the full estimate of 1.4 trillion barrels, what does the rest of the world have to produce, in order for "domestic" oil to last the US 200 years?
If you assume that all "our" oil stays in the US, then the question becomes: "Why are you such a communist?" -Because the oil has to be nationalized (de facto or via an export tax scheme), in order for domestic production to benefit only a domestic audience.

Why not make it very simple, PB? That oil will last us 20,000 years. I can make that claim because we're gonna be driving electric vehicles within the next 20 years, at least in the developed world. And that is because oil is becoming too damn expensive to get to market, and less dependable as time goes on. It's a dog. Let it lie.

[kellyb]

If you assume that all "our" oil stays in the US, then the question becomes: "Why are you such a communist?"

Ha. I was actually wondering how that would work.

[optimus]

You just confirmed my suspicion that you are a complete moron. The title of the video you posted was about cars that run on water, was it not.

Ok, didn't seem like you watched it. WHEN have water powered cars been tried?

[antiquity]

I did watch the video and fail to see your point with your comment.

Quote by Antiquity

I have no problem with that solution, but if I recall right this has been tried before and it went no where.

As you can see I never made a claim they worked, I said they have been tried and went no where. However......

Water-fuelled cars have been the subject of numerous international patents, newspaper and popular science magazine articles, local television news coverage, and the Internet.

[hadit]

Ha. I was actually wondering how that would work.

The key to it being "our" oil is that it is not subject to the whims of a bunch of thugs who hate us. The more we produce ourselves, the less we care if Achmadinnerjacket jumps up and down, yelling about the Great Satan.