Oil Slick Stuff

Sort by newest Sort by date
Thanks Norm, I looked at those charts before posting my earlier comment. There is no mention of the record imports of petroleum; petroleum is left out of the equation completely. The only reason I can see for the record petroleum imports is speculation.:suspicious:

The falling dollar resulted in record exports and kept the economy from sliding into deeper recession, despite record oil prices. Interesting.
 
This is a really well-written, well-balanced editorial on "to drill or not to drill."

Norm, TIA for letting me hijack the thread to post it.:)
Washington Post Editorial
'Snake Oil'
Debunking three 'truths' about offshore drilling
August 12, 2008
THE NATURAL Resources Defense Council Action Fund has taken out full-page ads in this newspaper and others to decry offshore drilling for oil as "George W. Bush's Gasoline Price Elixir" that is "100% Snake Oil." The environmental group calls on supporters "to stop the giveaway of our coasts." It is urging visitors to its Web site to send a pre-written letter to their members of Congress that says, "I am not buying the lie . . . that sacrificing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and America's coastal waters to oil drilling would make a real difference in gas prices -- either today or twenty years from today!" And the missive adds, "With just three percent of the world's oil reserves, our nation simply doesn't have enough oil to impact the global market or drill our way to lower prices at the pump."
The NRDC's arguments above neatly encapsulate the position taken by environmentalists and other opponents of offshore drilling. And they include a couple of good points. Contrary to the baldly political suggestions regarding lower gasoline prices by President Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), drilling would make no impact on today's pain at the pump because it would be years before any oil flowed from the Outer Continental Shelf. We agree that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with its varied and sensitive ecosystems, should be preserved. In the quest for new sources of energy, there are trade-offs. That pristine area must remain off-limits. But there are three "truths" masquerading as fact among drilling opponents that need to be challenged:
1. Drilling is pointless because the United States has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. This is a misleading because it refers only to known oil reserves. According to the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS), while there are an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil in the off-limits portions of the OCS, those estimates were made using old data from now-outdated seismic equipment. In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, the data were collected before Congress imposed a moratorium on offshore drilling in 1981. In 1987, the MMS estimated that there were 9 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. By 2006, after major advances in seismic technology and deepwater drilling techniques, the MMS resource estimate for that area had ballooned to 45 billion barrels. In short, there could be much more oil under the sea than previously known. The demand for energy is going up, not down. And for a long time, even as alternative sources of energy are developed, more oil will be needed.
2. The oil companies aren't using the leases they already have. According to the MMS, there were 7,457 active leases as of June 8. Of those, only 1,877 were classified as "producing." As we pointed out in a previous editorial, the five leases that have made up the Shell Perdido project off Galveston since 1996 are not classified as producing. Only when it starts pumping the equivalent of an estimated 130,000 barrels of oil a day at the end of the decade will it be deemed "active." Since 1996, Shell has paid rent on the leases; filed and had approved numerous reports with the MMS, including an environmentally sensitive resource development plan and an oil spill recovery plan that is subject to unannounced practice runs by the MMS; drilled several wells to explore the area at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars; and started constructing the necessary infrastructure to bring the oil to market. The notion that oil companies are just sitting on oil leases is a myth. With oil prices still above $100 a barrel, that charge never made sense.
3. Drilling is environmentally dangerous. Opposition to offshore drilling goes back to 1969, when 80,000 barrels of oil from an offshore oil well blowout washed up on the beaches of Santa Barbara. In 1971, the Interior Department instituted a host of reporting requirements (such as the resource development and oil spill recovery plans mentioned above) and stringent safety measures. Chief among them is a requirement for each well to have an automatic shut-off valve beneath the ocean floor that can also be operated manually. According to the MMS, between 1993 and 2007, there were 651 spills of all sizes at OCS facilities (in federal waters three miles or more offshore) that released 47,800 barrels of oil. With 7.5 billion barrels of oil produced in that time, that equates to 1 barrel of oil spilled per 156,900 barrels produced. That's not to minimize the danger. But no form of energy is perfect or without trade-offs. Besides, if it is acceptable to drill in the Caspian Sea and in developing countries such as Nigeria where environmental concerns are equally important, it's hard to explain why the United States should rule out drilling off its own coasts.
The strongest argument against drilling is that it could distract the country from a pursuit of alternative sources of energy. There's no question that the administration has been lax on that front. True leadership would emphasize both alternative sources and rational approaches to developing oil and natural gas. No, the United States cannot drill its way to energy independence. But with the roaring economies of China and India gobbling up oil in the two countries' latter-day industrial revolutions, the United States can no longer afford to turn its back on finding all the sources of fuel necessary to maintain its economy and its standard of living. What's required is a long-term, comprehensive plan that includes wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and nuclear -- and that acknowledges that oil and gas will be instrumental to the U.S. economy for many years to come.
Click to expand...
 
luv2read said:
This is a really well-written, well-balanced editorial on "to drill or not to drill."

Norm, TIA for letting me hijack the thread to post it.:)
Click to expand...
No thanks required, you are welcome to post all you want, it's a free MB isn't it?:D
Of course I reserve my right to WHOLEHEARTEDLY DISAGREE with you if I do, and you know I DO!!:suspicious:
 
nnuut said:
No thanks required, you are welcome to post all you want, it's a free MB isn't it?:D
Of course I reserve my right to WHOLEHEARTEDLY DISAGREE with you if I do, and you know I DO!!:suspicious:
Click to expand...
What! And all this time I thought you were in favor of DRILL! DRILL! DRILL!:laugh:

It debunks the 3 myths that the anti-drilling proponents are screaming about and presents actual facts. :D
 
nnuut said:
No thanks required, you are welcome to post all you want, it's a free MB isn't it?:D
Of course I reserve my right to WHOLEHEARTEDLY DISAGREE with you if I do, and you know I DO!!:suspicious:
Click to expand...
Norm;

What part do you WHOLEHEARTEDLY DISAGREE with? The "United States trying to become energy independent, developing alternate energy or Offshore drilling? Or all of the above?
 
luv2read said:
What! And all this time I thought you were in favor of DRILL! DRILL! DRILL!:laugh:

It debunks the 3 myths that the anti-drilling proponents are screaming about and presents actual facts. :D
Click to expand...
There you go, every day I learn, or relearn something. I just learned what sometimes it's not enough to just scan over a document. You need to read the whole darn thing!! Sorry, I thought it was an anti DRILL, DRILL, DRILL opinion. MY BAD!!:embarrest: SLAP ME HARD!!!:embarrest:
 
nnuut said:
There you go, every day I learn, or relearn something. I just learned what sometimes it's not enough to just scan over a document. You need to read the whole darn thing!! Sorry, I thought it was an anti DRILL, DRILL, DRILL opinion. MY BAD!!:embarrest: SLAP ME HARD!!!:embarrest:
Click to expand...
Consider yourself telespanked.;):p

I should have bolded this sentence above the first myth:

But there are three "truths" masquerading as fact among drilling opponents that need to be challenged:
 
It's OK I deserve it, right now I'm ROFLMAO!!bandages.gif
Darn L2R looks like you are coming around to the right (not left) way of thinking?:rolleyes:
 
itsok.gif



But, Oil has only 13 bucks to go before it hits that C note
yay.gif
 
nnuut said:
It's OK I deserve it, right now I'm ROFLMAO!!View attachment 4450
Darn L2R looks like you are coming around to the right (not left) way of thinking?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Just the facts Norm, always just the facts. I read the editorial and recognized it for what it is - a balanced treatment of the facts; I'm neither left nor right-leaning but have an open mind that can accept both points of view.

The 4th myth (and the one I have a problem with) is that if the ban is lifted tomorrow, new drilling begins the day after, and oil and gasoline prices will immediately drop and stay there. Anybody with any knowledge of the oil business knows it doesn't happen that fast, permits take time, infrastructure has to be available, etc. I'm disgusted that the greedy are foisting this big lie on a gullible public that is hurting financially and looking for a quick fix.

Too late Buster, I've already done the spanking. I think one is enough.:cheesy:
 
Buster I have a tendency to jump to conclusions always gets me in trouble, but being ignorant isn't a sin.:D

I'm of the conclusion that Oil will be lower than this next year.:worried:

Oil price forecast for '09 gets a trim

Government says it now expects crude to average $124 a barrel next year, down $9 from previous forecast. Home heating bills expected to weigh on consumers.

By Ben Rooney, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: August 12, 2008: 6:08 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil prices could be lower than previously expected next year, but the outlook for home heating oil and natural gas signals more pain this winter, according to a government report released Tuesday.
In its August short-term energy outlook, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) said it expects crude prices to average $124 a barrel in 2009. That's down from July when the EIA projected an average price of $133 per barrel.
"Prospects of improved oil market fundamentals over the next 18 months point to an easing in the market balance and price weakness over the near term," the report said.
But homeowners are expected to pay an average of $1,182 to heat their homes between October and March, according to the EIA. That's an increase of nearly 20% over last year's average expenditure of $986.
That will put additional pressure on household budgets already strained by high gasoline prices, said Tancred Lidderdale, a senior economist at the EIA.
"The concern is that winter fuels bills could have as big, or a bigger impact," than high gas prices, he said.[more]
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/EIA_energy_outlook/index.htm?postversion=2008081218
 
squalebear said:
Norm, that .gif should be entitled;

"This is gonna hurt me more then its gonna hurt you"
You must have a treasure chest full of them !

:toung:​
Click to expand...
No went out and got that one just for my spanking by L2R, it was good!!:D
You know my dad used to say that and then laugh and say "but not in the same place"!laughdog.gif
 
nnuut said:
Buster I have a tendency to jump to conclusions always gets me in trouble, but being ignorant isn't a sin.
Click to expand...

IMHO, Buster wasn't calling you ignorant, he was using the word which
included the word IGNORE. He might have been referring to a previous
post. See what happens Buster, I'm tell'n MOM ! :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top