increasing offshore drilling

[futurepilot]

Helluva lot more than 2 years worth of crude.

Thats a some convincing proof you've provided.

Soup is right - your type of thinking is what got us here.

My type of thinking? That oil is a relic from years past when environmental conerns, cost, and sustainability were not an issue?

What got us here is people that think that it is a good idea to drill in ANWR so that we have more oil to feed the industrial complex while totally ignoring how were being raped.

Or how we should drill in the gulf, use it as a patch to get us through untill this generation dies, leaving the solution to the next poor saps.

Look, i am of the opinion that this society, along with the industrial complex, is just memetics anyways. So nothing you guys have to say surprises me one bit. But i am willing to dicuss this non the less. It is through open comunication that you get the best insight into a persons belief system.

 

[futurepilot]

.

You won't wait 5 years but expect the American public to invest 150 billion in tax money that might make a dent 30 years form now. Great logic you have...

If you actually got off the green high horse you could actually see that if we drilled and sold that supply we could pay for every technological advance you want...but no, the sand floor can't be disturbed.

150 billion? 30 years? You must have been talking too dave...where did you get those numbers?

And i have yet to specify the technological advances that i want to see.

 

[thesinner]

The retail market margins have fallen from 30% to around 10% leaving the bulk of their profits to be derived from non-retail sales which still get 30%+ profitablility.

And yes by owning a car i am part of the problem, not the solution. That doesnt mean that i will vote for a quick fix that just delays the inevitable. And untill the day we're forced to find alternatives, people will continue to look for substitutes for solutions, they will look for something that they believe will help them short term, while totally ignoring the larger issue. Sustainable fuel sources at reasonable cost.

Who said anything about a quick fix?

Drilling for alternative sources can ease the economic issue, while alternatives are being developed.

It would be naive to think that everyone will just stop driving cars overnight. A change is something that is going to take decades to do. In the meantime, I think it would be nice not to have a shortage of gasoline.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Who said anything about a quick fix?

Drilling for alternative sources can ease the economic issue, while alternatives are being developed.

He doens't understand this. He doesn't undersand the concept that investors go where the money is. Right now, its commodities. If the US government came out and said we would drill, investors would run to the hills because they know more supply will be coming. He thinks in terms of now when investors think in terms of years. Thats why solar, wind, and natural gas companies are taking off....now...not when its in full force.


The simple announcement we're drilling and the lifting of regulations would send the price plummeting and shake every investor and financial institution holding oil out of the system. He doesn't get it, and never will. He regurgitates environmental and liberal talking points and never traded an oil contract in his life. He doesn't listen to those in the industry...he learns his facts from the AP and whatever news orginizations picks it up.

It would be naive to think that everyone will just stop driving cars overnight. A change is something that is going to take decades to do. In the meantime, I think it would be nice not to have a shortage of gasoline.

That makes too much sense. As you can see he would be a pig in slop if we all we're driving horse and buggies. They want anything co2 related eliminated so everyone can sit around fires and smoke em peace pipes.

 

[futurepilot]

He doesn't listen to those in the industry...he learns his facts from the AP and whatever news orginizations picks it up.

so everyone can sit around fires and smoke em peace pipes.

True, I listen to reports containing facts. Not industry bias.

And what a tragedy that would be if the world was at peace....

 

[Dwight Schrute]

150 billion? 30 years? You must have been talking too dave...where did you get those numbers?

Obama

And i have yet to specify the technological advances that i want to see.

Yeah, at 23 you've really seen a lot.

 

[futurepilot]

Who said anything about a quick fix?

Drilling for alternative sources can ease the economic issue, while alternatives are being developed.

Oil anywhere in the world in a quick fix. i dont care if you want to dig in the gulf, off the coast of maine, southern california, or alaska. We cannot sustain our economy through oil.

The alternative sources of energy im refering to are not oil. there is no "drilling for alternative sources". The alternative is to move away from oil. And you think that while there's billions being spent to look for oil that eases everyones mind for a few years that the U.S. will at the same time be investing in non petrol fuel sources? No way, once people get distracted by all this new oil, sustainable energy will be put on the back burner.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

True, I listen to reports containing facts. Not industry bias.

So let me get this straight....you beleive an article reported by the AP that came from the oil companies......yet you don't beleive a government report...the same government that bans oil companies from drilling.

No wonder you are severely confused.

And what a tragedy that would be if the world was at peace....

You would complain about something.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Oil anywhere in the world in a quick fix. i dont care if you want to dig in the gulf, off the coast of maine, southern california, or alaska. We cannot sustain our economy through oil.

Seriously, you are the last person that should talk about anything related to the economy.

The alternative sources of energy im refering to are not oil. there is no "drilling for alternative sources". The alternative is to move away from oil. And you think that while there's billions being spent to look for oil that eases everyones mind for a few years that the U.S. will at the same time be investing in non petrol fuel sources? No way, once people get distracted by all this new oil, sustainable energy will be put on the back burner.

Its quite obvious you don't follow the energy markets and the unbelievable boom solar, wind and battery companies have experienced in the last 10 years.


Everyone knows oil is unsustainable....its the reason the free market will reward the companies that bring new technology to market.

Then those companies will bethe new "oil companies" and I will bet anything you will complain about their record profits as well.

 

[futurepilot]

Obama

Yeah, at 23 you've really seen a lot.

I may not have seen as much as someone whose only 10 yrs older than me, but at least im not listening to Barack Obama. The man is a joke, at best.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I may not have seen as much as someone whose only 10 yrs older than me, but at least im not listening to Barack Obama. The man is a joke, at best.

If you think hes a joke, then you must have listening to him at one point. Its the height of arrogance to think that Obama, a Harvard Grad and probably the next president is a joke.

I don't agree with many of his positions at all and won't vote for him but it would be completely ridiculous for me to think the man is a joke.

Maybe when you're a bit older, you might understand that.

 

[futurepilot]

Its quite obvious you don't follow the energy markets and the unbelievable boom solar, wind and battery companies have experienced in the last 10 years.

Everyone knows oil is unsustainable....its the reason the free market will reward the companies that bring new technology to market.

I have been following up and coming solar/wind/battery companies which is why i think that drilling is not the answer.

Isnt that pretty much what i've been saying this whole time? That we need to give incentive to these new technology instead of obscuring them by drilling for more oil?


I've listen to most of Obamas speeches, that i doesnt mean i believe him. And just because you go to harvard doesnt mean you have common sense.

I am free to my opinion as are you. It seems that you are on the brink of resorting to personal attacks to illustrate your point so i will agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

 

[dave12]

Offshore drilling is a waste of time, money and the environment. There's at best 2 yrs worth of oil in the gulf. and its not like the oil companys will flood the market with cheap gas, prices will stay the same, it will just delay the enevitable. When we must run our cars without petroleum

Sorry was on the boat, you made this statement alleging that there is a maximum of two years of oil supply in the gulf of mexico, everything I have asked is related to where you came to said conclusion. You state offshore drilling is folly because of a lack of recoverable resources. So I ask where has this figure come from? (Also, my figure of 2.228 billion barrel of oil comes from the US Department of Energy daily oil import average over the last 5 years.)

 

[futurepilot]

Sorry was on the boat, you made this statement alleging that there is a maximum of two years of oil supply in the gulf of mexico, everything I have asked is related to where you came to said conclusion. You state offshore drilling is folly because of a lack of recoverable resources. So I ask where has this figure come from? (Also, my figure of 2.228 billion barrel of oil comes from the US Department of Energy daily oil import average over the last 5 years.)

thats alright, i wondered where you disappeared to.

My source off hand is chevron, as related through an AP newswire that i found on msnbc, the link is on the first page.

The 2.288 billion, im still confused i guess. Your saying that i said thats all thats there? Because i did not, i've said there is 3-15 billion barrels available, with the US using 7-8 billion barrels a year, you get 2 years at best.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I have been following up and coming solar/wind/battery companies which is why i think that drilling is not the answer.

Nobody is saying drilling is the "answer". There is no one answer. Drilling will help and the amount of oil recoverable form the east coast, west coast, gulf, anwr, oil shale is more than twice that of what Saudia Arabia has in reserve (250 billion).

You seem to tihnk those that want to drill think its the "answer". Sorry, we're not that dense. The same people who bought oil companies stocks and/or futures are the same investing in solar, wind, batteries, etc....the free market always has brought new technology and answers to existing problems and always will.

Isnt that pretty much what i've been saying this whole time? That we need to give incentive to these new technology instead of obscuring them by drilling for more oil?

The free market is incentive enough. Its the reason people start business's. Money. Necessity is the mother of all invention...

I've listen to most of Obamas speeches, that i doesnt mean i believe him. And just because you go to harvard doesnt mean you have common sense.

Yeah....forming probably the largest grass roots campaign thats raised more money in the history of politics generally means you have some sort of competence...but thats me.

I am free to my opinion as are you. It seems that you are on the brink of resorting to personal attacks to illustrate your point so i will agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

I haven't personally attacked you at all. I said its the height of arrogance at 23 to think someone is a joke with the kind of accomplishments he's already achieved.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Your saying that i said thats all thats there? Because i did not, i've said there is 3-15 billion barrels available, with the US using 7-8 billion barrels a year, you get 2 years at best.

Yes you did.

There's at best 2 yrs worth of oil in the gulf.

You used one oil find with one oil company on already leased lands to make a statement about the entire gulf.

 

[futurepilot]

Nobody is saying drilling is the "answer". There is no one answer. Drilling will help and the amount of oil recoverable form the east coast, west coast, gulf, anwr, oil shale is more than twice that of what Saudia Arabia has in reserve (250 billion).

Nope sorry, that oil shale your talking about is only at best 1% recoverable, meaning out of the possible 167 bilion barrels we could get 1 billion barrels, enough for less than 2 month of american consumtion.

And as far as other oil sources. i may have been misleading with my post relating to chevron. Your correct those are known oil areas, but the true extent of the viable oil is not known.

Here is the current status of oil in the U.S.


Recent studies2,3 estimated that the US may have 42 billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil resources in Federal areas that are under access restrictions preventing oil exploration. Undiscovered technically recoverable resources are resources "…postulated from geologic information and theory to exist outside of known oil and gas accumulations and that are producible using current recovery technology, but without reference to economic profitability…"

About 21.2 billion barrels of these oil resources are located in the eleven onshore areas inventoried by the two EPCA studies2:

Northern Alaska (including the NPR-A and the ANWR 1002 area)
Wyoming Thrust Belt (in WY, UT, and ID)
Denver Basin (in CO, WY, NE, and SD)
Florida Peninsula
Black Warrior Basin (in MS and AL)
Appalachian Basin (in TN, KY, WV, VA, MD, OH, PA, NJ and NY)
Paradox/San Juan Basins (in CO, NM and UT)
Uinta-Piceance Basin (in CO and UT)
Greater Green River Basin (in CO and WY)
Powder River Basin (in MT and WY)
Montana Thrust Belt (in MT)
The remaining 20.8 billion barrels are in offshore locations, primarily3 in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf (Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans).

If these estimates are correct, the new resources can supply the US with crude for about 7.6 years at current consumption levels. However, we also need to estimate the bump in the US production rate that can be obtained from the 42 billion barrels of new oil resources. We can get a quick estimate of these rates by using a generalized Bass model4 with time-dependent ultimate cumulative production. The scenario presented here assumed that production from the new fields would start around 2020 and reach a peak of 3 million barrel per day around 2040. However, the model can easily handle different production schedules.


2. "Scientific Inventory of Onshore Federal Lands’ Oil and Gas Resources and the Extent and
Nature of Restrictions or Impediments to Their Development," Report by the US
Departments of the Interior, Agriculture and Energy, 2006.
3. "Facing the Hard Truths about Energy," National Petroleum Council, July 2007.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Nope sorry, that oil shale your talking about is only at best 1% recoverable, meaning out of the possible 167 bilion barrels we could get 1 billion barrels, enough for less than 2 month of american consumtion.

And where did you get that from because the pdf I've read said 1.8 trillion barrels.


Invalid Link Removed

And as far as other oil sources. i may have been misleading with my post relating to chevron. Your correct those are known oil areas, but the true extent of the viable oil is not known.

Which is why I posted the assessment of OCS oil reserves.


" The MMS has completed an assessment of the undiscovered technically recoverable resources (UTRR) underlying offshore waters on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This assessment was based on information available as of January 1, 2003, including information obtained from new exploration activities.

The MMS estimates that the quantity of undiscovered technically recoverable resources ranges from 66.6 to 115.3 billion barrels of oil and 326.4 to 565.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The mean or average estimate is 85.9 billion barrels of oil and 419.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These volumes of UTRR for the OCS represent about 60 percent of the total oil and 40 percent of the total natural gas estimated to be contained in undiscovered fields in the United States. The mean estimates for both oil and gas increased about 15 percent compared to the 2001 assessment. For the oil resources, the vast majority of this increase occurred in the deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico, while for gas resources the majority of the increase was in deep gas plays located beneath the shallow water shelf of the Gulf of Mexico.

These estimates represent the potential quantities of undiscovered hydrocarbons that can be conventionally produced using existing or reasonably foreseeable technology, without any consideration of economic feasibility. Current technology includes drilling in water in excess of 3000 meters (10,000 feet) deep and to subsea depths in excess of 9600 meters (31,700 feet).

MMS periodically conducts comprehensive assessments of the undiscovered oil and gas resources on the OCS. The last comprehensive inventory was completed in 2001, with an interim update in 2003 to reflect significant changes in natural gas potential in the Gulf of Mexico. The resource assessments also include production and reserve estimates for the OCS as well as estimates of undiscovered economically recoverable resources. Undiscovered economically recoverable resources (UERR), presented in the form of price-supply curves, represent the portion of the undiscovered technically recoverable hydrocarbons that can be explored, developed and commercially produced at given costs and price considerations."



Invalid Link Removed

 

[futurepilot]

And where did you get that from because the pdf I've read said 1.8 trillion barrels.


Which is why I posted the assessment of OCS oil reserves.

This is the current bakken analysis.

Invalid Link Removed


And the above post (#67) is also the current oil numbers, like i was trying to explain before, that study you posted (#15) is from 2001, with a recalibration in 2003, but the last comprehensive assement was the original in 2001.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

This is the current bakken analysis.

Invalid Link Removed

No, thats the opinion. Others disagree not to mention the pdf I posted shows whats totally avaialable. I also find it curious they didn't even mention freeze wall technology for oil shale extraction...

And the above post (#67) is also the current oil numbers, like i was trying to explain before, that study you posted (#15) is from 2001, with a recalibration in 2003, but the last comprehensive assement was the original in 2001.

Can you please post the .gov pdf for that. The only thing I find with that text is an article here:

Invalid Link Removed

...and when they estimate the amount of oil they do not use the governmental assessment for OCS suppleis...they use:


"Scientific Inventory of Onshore Federal Lands"

and..

3. "Facing the Hard Truths about Energy," National Petroleum Council, July 2007.



Now considering Chevron found 15 billion in one area, I find it a bit hard to believe this article is....accurate.

 

[futurepilot]

No, thats the opinion. .

No, thats the results found by the state Department of Mineral Resources.

Now considering Chevron found 15 billion in one area, I find it a bit hard to believe this article is....accurate.

Chevron is estimating an upper range of 15 billion, the lower range being 3billion.

The results for post #67 were done by the US
Departments of the Interior, Agriculture and Energy. And the National Petroleum Council, how is it hard to believe the accuracy?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

****....i actually deleted that when editing...




In short,


The numbers you posted in your post are from an artcle that cites two resources. One is the global estimates and the other is the ONSHORE estimates.

"Scientific Inventory of Onshore Federal Lands"




They are not assessments for the OCS and there is only one orginization that handles that...its the MMS.

"The dedicated men and women of the Minerals Management Service regulate domestic energy production off America’s coast on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). "

...the other resource is about global supply (although I mistakenly looked at global as US) and thats here. Please show me where it states 20 billion estimates in the OCS because I can't find it.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[futurepilot]

No, because studies have figures from 3,10,20,50 and 70% extraction...and the Bakken formation is ONE formation. "And lets not forget the Bakken Formation that estimates around 92-413 billion barrels of oil could be extracted from oil shale.

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/bakken/n...eEstimates.pdf"

If you forgot you yourself cited the bakken fields with information from 1974....is there a trend here or is it just me?

What i have cited is current estimate by a government agency in what is currently able to be processed.

Do you think Chevron drilled on one area and found all the oil available in the Gulf? ....you can't be this obtuse.

You were citing Chevron incorrectly, i merely corrected you.

remember when i said that you were on the brink of illustrating your points with personal attacks?

You do see Onshore right?

...you would see that the report states estimates of around 2 trillion barrels on the high end.

Yes the onshore portion of those numbers is to show you the study of americas oil, compared to offshore which it illustrated below that.


Your quoting misleading numbers. 2 trillion+ barrels is the amount of "undiscovered resources" added onto the amount of reserves seen today. If you want to argue the amount of "undiscovered resources" available there is really no point in furthering this discussion.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

If you forgot you yourself cited the bakken fields with information from 1974....is there a trend here or is it just me?

The trend of you not understanding anything? Could be.

Its called an example. Do you want more because even the ones I do post you ignore.

What i have cited is current estimate by a government agency in what is currently able to be processed.

And what does that have to do with future drilling? See the whole point is to actually find out whats available and prove what most estimates point to...

You were citing Chevron incorrectly, i merely corrected you.

No,you just missed the point...again.

remember when i said that you were on the brink of illustrating your points with personal attacks?

Yes and you had less of a point then you do now.

Yes the onshore portion of those numbers is to show you the study of americas oil, compared to offshore which it illustrated below that.

So Americans offshore oil isn't Americas? News to me...

If you want to argue the amount of "undiscovered resources" available there is really no point in furthering this discussion.

Yes...the point of the discussion is to open up drilling to lands that are not available to oil companies in which the oil amounts are UNKNOWN.

WTF is the point of discussing drilling on land the oil companies can already drill on???


All you have done is gone in circles and fully shown everyone here that you really have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[jmh80]

I give up on the Pilot as I've been advised by our public affairs people to stop communicating with the general public.
Something about being too good looking for a PA job...

Pilot - you were the person on here proclaiming that a pipeline of natural gas from Alaska was too cost prohibitive to build because it was too far to the lower 48 states.

Remember my point? We bring ships of LNG from Qatar.

Thinking about the above discussion we had: is it possible all your distinctions are wrong? And hence all your rules and laws about energy are wrong?
Riddle me that.

 

[futurepilot]

Pilot - you were the person on here proclaiming that a pipeline of natural gas from Alaska was too cost prohibitive to build because it was too far to the lower 48 states.

Sorry man, you got me confused with someone else...i honestly dont know what your talking about...what was the thread?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Thinking about the above discussion we had: is it possible all your distinctions are wrong? And hence all your rules and laws about energy are wrong?
Riddle me that.

Well he's wrong on just about everything. You have one person that trades/invests in oil and another person who drills it yet he knows more about it than us...

Serisouly, if I thought like him, I'd be broke. :lol:

 

[jmh80]

Well he's wrong on just about everything. You have one person that trades/invests in oil and another person who drills it yet he knows more about it than us...

Serisouly, if I thought like him, I'd be broke. :lol:

I've said on more than one occasion on this board and others that if we in the industry ran things like people thought we did that there'd be gas about half the year (which would make us China apparently).

I'm thinking it's about time to move on, B.
The force is strong in this one. :toofunny:

 

[futurepilot]

Its called an example. Do you want more because even the ones I do post you ignore.

I have read everypost you made.

Let me sum up my point, since the current reserves that we know of. That we may or may not be able to be fully develop dont meet the need of the U.S. for even a decade, it would be irresponsible to drill into the gulf to explore for more oil. At best it is a quick fix, at worst it draws attention away from the emerging technology like wind/water/solar/battery etc.

You may want cheap gas now, but i desire a future. If we refuse to solve our reliance on petrol, we have none.

 

[futurepilot]

I'm thinking it's about time to move on, B.

Hello? You confused me someone else, not going to comment about that?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I've said on more than one occasion on this board and others that if we in the industry ran things like people thought we did that there'd be gas about half the year (which would make us China apparently).

I'm thinking it's about time to move on, B.
The force is strong in this one. :toofunny:

You need to watch that show "Black Gold"


Its a reality show about wildcatters and roughnecking...

 

[futurepilot]

You have one person that trades/invests in oil and another person who drills it yet he knows more about it than us...

Serisouly, if I thought like him, I'd be broke. :lol:

Don't think your the only person that trades stocks.

What does thinking of your future have to do with making money? I make money in the market even today, that doesnt mean that I cant be a responsbile human being.

 

[jmh80]

Sorry man, you got me confused with someone else...i honestly dont know what your talking about...what was the thread?

Pretty sure it was you - you are the only one on the board with a curse word in your av.

I can't find the thread though. Oh well.

 

[futurepilot]

.I can't find the thread though.

Go through my posts then if your so convinced. Your incorrect though. I've never been in any sort of pipeline discussion with anyone on this board.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I have read everypost you made.

Let me sum up my point, since the current reserves that we know of. That we may or may not be able to be fully develop dont meet the need of the U.S. for even a decade, it would be irresponsible to drill into the gulf to explore for more oil. At best it is a quick fix, at worst it draws attention away from the emerging technology like wind/water/solar/battery etc.

You may want cheap gas now, but i desire a future. If we refuse to solve our reliance on petrol, we have none.

Its not a quick fix. The transfer of oil to something better will take decades and thats if we start now.

Its completley retarded to let a resource be untapped that we can use now (3-7 years) just because you want some theortetical replacement to be invested in now.

Your all or nothing strategy is ridiculous and reeks of ideologoy over reality. You're 23 though so its expected...

 

[jmh80]

I have read everypost you made.

Let me sum up my point, since the current reserves that we know of. That we may or may not be able to be fully develop dont meet the need of the U.S. for even a decade, it would be irresponsible to drill into the gulf to explore for more oil. At best it is a quick fix, at worst it draws attention away from the emerging technology like wind/water/solar/battery etc.

You may want cheap gas now, but i desire a future. If we refuse to solve our reliance on petrol, we have none.

You can't make up conclusions like a switch to whatever technology because you "believe" or whatever.
It takes study, time, and people to develop something for a billion people to get to work or the gym on.
You can't just hope for it overnight while neglecting the next 20 years, which will be dominated by gasoline (like it or not).

Some of the stuff people have proposed don't make thermodynamic sense (think cold fusion - I really like the way that technology worked out).

It's not like the world is running out of oil. You seem to have behind your posts this peak oil theory.
There is plenty of crude - governments just choose not to drill for it.

 

[jmh80]

Go through my posts then if your so convinced. Your incorrect though. I've never been in any sort of pipeline discussion with anyone on this board.

I don't care enough, bro.

 

[futurepilot]

I don't care enough, bro.

Apparently you did care, enough to bring it up.

 

[jmh80]

Oh and this "2 years" business is stupid. If we opened the land off-shore in Florida, let's say, and we found enough BBL's for 2% of daily current US consumption.
You still develop that.

There are and have never EVER been fields that would satisfy 100% of US consumption for 10+ years (or whatever time period you want). Not even Ghawar in Saudi - the biggest on record.

If you go along with the "we need to find a single field that satisfy's all the needs of this country for X years" then you'd never drill any field.

I'd make this analogy - if I came to you and said I'd give you $100, but went and balance my checkbook and only had $100 to give - you'd still take that, right?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Don't think your the only person that trades stocks.

What I know is that I do it much more than you....at 23. And I do it in this industry...an area which you've shown a complete lack of understanding.

 

[futurepilot]

Your all or nothing strategy is ridiculous and reeks of ideologoy over reality. You're 23 though so its expected...

I have the ability right now for almost $2,000, to convert my car to be driven by an electric motor. It would run almost 200 miles on one charge, with 8 hrs charging time, from what i remember, my research is on my other computer.

If we even reduced our oil intake by 25% it would make the world of difference. If we converted Semi's tractors to electric it would be a quantum leap forward in moving away from oil.

Im not saying thats the answer to end all the worlds ills, but its a start. Better than drilling for more oil.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Oh and this "2 years" business is stupid. If we opened the land off-shore in Florida, let's say, and we found enough BBL's for 2% of daily current US consumption.
You still develop that.

Actually, that would drop oil about 30%. The simple announcement that we start drilling and the spec go running....start investing in gold again

....but considering he doesn't trade or follow the markets that closely, he wouldn't know that.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I have the ability right now for almost $2,000, to convert my car to be driven by an electric motor. It would run almost 200 miles on one charge, with 8 hrs charging time, from what i remember, my research is on my other computer.

If we even reduced our oil intake by 25% it would make the world of difference. If we converted Semi's tractors to electric it would be a quantum leap forward in moving away from oil.

Im not saying thats the answer to end all the worlds ills, but its a start. Better than drilling for more oil.

Ah yes..the electric option. Maybe you should tell California and New York to upgrade that infrastructure because they are having rolling blackouts now because the grid can't handle it. And when New York goes out, it takes the northeast with it.

See, I already gave you that option. Drill for oil, use proceeds to upgrade the grid and build nuclear because if you switch to electric cars, thats what you are going to have to do to keep the millions of cars charged.

What do you think powers most of our electric plants now that you want to utilize? Coal.

So you want electric to replace oil? Pick Nuclear or Coal because wind and solar can't handle the load.

 

[jmh80]

Ah yes..the electric option. Maybe you should tell California and New York to upgrade that infrastructure because they are having rolling blackouts now because the grid can't handle it. And when New York goes out, it takes the northeast with it.

See, I already gave you that option. Drill for oil, use proceeds to upgrade the grid and build nuclear because if you switch to electric cars, thats what you are going to have to do to keep the millions of cars charged.

What do you think powers most of our electric plants now that you want to utilize? Coal.

So you want electric to replace oil? Pick Nuclear or Coal because wind and solar can't handle the load.

I was going to post just that on the electric option.

The price of electricity would go through the ROOF if you had a large number of people convert to electric motors.

Talk about complaining then. We'd switch from railing on the oil companies to the electric companies.

(Never mind the billions to make said infrastructure upgrades across the US...)



To be fair - natural gas generation is seemingly picking up across the US (not just the Gulf south) because some companies view a possible CO2 cap system in the future (and natural gas has less CO2 emissions than coal).
Oh wait - it takes drilling for natural gas. Eh, oh well.

 

[timmmah]

Obviously you don't trade oil or know the margins of the oil companies. When the price goes up there margins go DOWN. When they have record profits they have record expenses. But that's ok, because if you really want to go down the route you suggest, get ready for $9/gallon of gallon for the next 10 years while your tax money get spent on "research".

I don't trade oil. That is correct, you must be a psychic. How do we benefit from allowing offshore drilling? How's my dead aunt Claire doing, is she still writing canoli recipes for children?

 

[timmmah]

And what route did I suggest? Did I suggest a plan of action subliminally? you are waaaay better than Deanne Warwick, she charges too much

 

[futurepilot]

See, I already gave you that option. Drill for oil, use proceeds to upgrade the grid and build nuclear because if you switch to electric cars, thats what you are going to have to do to keep the millions of cars charged.

What do you think powers most of our electric plants now that you want to utilize? Coal.

So you want electric to replace oil? Pick Nuclear or Coal because wind and solar can't handle the load.

I can use my solar powered generator. That deals with the problem of reliance on the grid. Its portable. And should it be a cloudy day your trunk is converted into a battery store house, for rechargeable batteries. So the batteries that were run down by usage can be replaced by these new ones.

 

[futurepilot]

....but considering he doesn't trade or follow the markets that closely, he wouldn't know that.

You should start a thread called: How condescending can the soup nazi be.

Just because i dont brag about my job or expertise in the market, doesnt mean that im ignorant to how things work.

 

[thesinner]

Ok SN, we're on page 4 now. Seriously, just say it already.

"No Oil for you!!!"

 

[Dwight Schrute]

You should start a thread called: How condescending can the soup nazi be.

It would go right in line with your "How wrong can I be" thread.

Just because i dont brag about my job or expertise in the market, doesnt mean that im ignorant to how things work.

Yes...with your logic you would argue with a driller on how to drill.