Posts
I've been accused of suggesting "that the present spike in [oil] prices are a blip, and the US should be exporting petroleum now to take advantage of these high prices before they go down."
I admit it. I'm assuming we are in a “gold-rush” sort of environment, so yes, I’m probably assuming a blip. I’m assuming the world is in a mad dash to develop alternatives to oil and to some extent we are right up there with the leaders of the charge. I doubt oil prices will continue to increase indefinitely. But I don't have much to base this on except to say that demand will likely decrease. If supply remains constant then the price will eventually fall.
As I’m putting all this together it seems to me that no matter when we tap our reserves it will likely go onto the world market and not dedicatedly be consumed at home.
I am not so sure our untapped oil is restricted to North American Continental geography, either. For instance, we now claim responsibility for monitoring a whole shload of oil under Iraq. I'm not saying we should simply take it. But, maybe extracting it to help pay for the "protection" we apply to the arena is a reasonable expectation. Let’s help them spend THEIR money on building THEIR nation and stop spending ours.
I’m just drawing a common-sense (with minimal qualifications) argument that if alternatives can be reasonably expected to replace oil, oil we hold on to will become less valuable. We’ll either never tap it, or we’ll sell it to those who stay on oil a little longer than we do.
I think I’m using the term “reserves” loosely. Are there “strategic” reserves for military use and “reserves” that represent the rest of the oil in the world to which we now lay legit claim? I’m shooting from the hip and not in a Google type mood.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed072407a.cfm
"Make no mistake, there is still plenty of oil to be found here. A recent Interior Department study estimates 21 billion barrels of oil lie untapped beneath federally controlled lands, mostly in the West and Alaska. That equals 30 years of current imports from Saudi Arabia."
A google search of "untapped oil beneath federally controlled lands Interior Department" yields a whole bunch of links but adding "site:doi.gov" narrows it down to two links which don't advance that claim.
That opinion piece from the heritage foundation is questionable on several fronts (though technically correct on any given fact). When discussing petroleum reserves, it's easy to throw around really big sounding numbers to bolster your claim, but it comes down to the fact that how much oil is under the lands, and how much oil is extractable in our decade, or even in our lifetime, are very different numbers. The best estimates for how much is extractable in the entire US (including federally protected lands and territorial waters) is less than 30 billion barrels (less than Angola's, and less than 1/5 of Iraq's proven reserves).
So PWB, how do we RATE the estimates that are out there? It seems the same can be said for any numbers out of line with our own thinking. How can we tell the "best" from the "worst" estimates? Political alignment?
Also, you said of domestic oil something like when we need it we will tap it. You've also said it would take to long to tap it to have enough affect to be worthwhile. Which is it? It's too hard and takes too long to tap, or it's too soon to for tapping because we don't NEED it yet?
Thanks for stoppin' in Bob Bayn and PWB. Any thing you'd like to share I will be glad to put up as a main heading.
when we need the oil it will be tapped, AND it will not have an overwhelming effect on the price of oil. I think both of those statements are true. "Need" is a fuzzy word, so to clarify: we "need" the oil now, but the existing environmental laws have provided enough of a barrier to stop it from being tapped yet. As the need becomes more acute, the pressure to tap them will eventually overcome the environmental legislation that has kept that oil from being exploited. However, if it happens now, or if it happens a few decades from now, given the amount that we're talking about, and given the size of our oil economy, it's going to be a drop in the bucket.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that blaming the environmental protection areas for our present spike in prices is taking both the quantity of oil available, and the impact that it will have on markets if and when it does go into production, way out of proportion.
As for ranking quality of estimates, that's a never-ending story. I try to stick to government statistical sources if possible (DOE and CIA, in my last posts, even though they have both been caught exaggerating or not being quite correct with their numbers recently). If the data comes from a thinktank or non-profit group, then you have to consider what they're trying to advocate at the same time as you look at their numbers.
PWB,
I agree, no single entity can be blamed for everything or even a large portion of "everything". I think if tapping domestic oil can EVER be expected lucrative, there is no solid argument for stalling.
Of the oil we use, 73 percent of it is imported.
There are three main reasons gas prices are out of hand.
A) no governmental regulation of the futures industry (speculators)
B) the weak dollar. Canada's dollar is worth more than ours now and oil is traded in dollars
C) the increase in demand outside the U.S. from developing economies such as China, India and Hyrum, Utah.
Congress won't change the regulations or rein in Big Oil because they are Big Oil's bitch.
The dollar will continue to weaken because of the mortgage greed, George W.'s general incompetence and less discretionary spending among the bloated middle class. (see Dow Jones freefall)
China and India are building coal plants like crazy as they realize the benefits of the industrial revolution.
The only solution is to buy Exxon-Mobil stock. Buy it now. Buy it cheap. You can use the quarterly profits to fill your tank.
I agree TH,
No matter the reasoning behind oil's "rush" in value, drilling asap seems lucrative!
Yes there is a shitload of Oil in Alaska. The oil companies have cleaned up their act in regards to drilling. we need to tap it so as not to be at the mercy of OPEC.
Check out the Bakken deposit in North Dakota: http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html
We have the oil. Hopefully we can use it responsibly.
Nice Blog Bluto!
Sheesh..
Thanks Sheesh buddy!
Oh shit! Now look what the Extreme Environmentalists are doing: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_us/polar_bears_oil
They are sueing under the possiblility that Polar Bears and Walrusi "might" be harmed!
Hell! Sueing for what "might" happen???? And look how fucking big the rest of the Arctic is? There is little there. A few thousand acres of oil drilling won't make a dent in the place.
Environmentalism got real big, back in the day when rivers in the northeast were blazing. And they did a good thing by turning this country away from pollution. The country is better off because of environmentalism...
But now I guess they sue merely to justify their existance!
They said "Bush administration's decision to let oil companies unintentionally harass or harm polar bears ect...".
Unintentionally means that they "might" harm the polar bears (whose habitat is way bigger than the continental U.S. already).
I've been to Alaska, and the far north is barren like a desert. My dad used to work in Prudhoe and said that they observed the environmental laws to the letter, and that bears and caribou used to lean against the pipeline and pumpstations for a break from the heat. The oil companies have come along way and keep their act clean.
Yet, there is a possibility that one of the sweet gentle bears may die while in the process of trying to rip someone's head off or something.
I've always voted my conscience without regard to parties. I just changed my vote from Obama to McCain because of this.
This shit is unbelievable.
Neither Obama nor McCain supports Alaska drilling, so changing your vote based on this issue is curious.
I agree. Not drilling in Anwar is absolute silliness. So, too, with offshore drilling.
Ecology has its place. But this has rapidly become a national security issue.
These people are the same ones who protest catch-and-release bass fishing tournaments noting that "the fish suffer significant emotional trauma at being caught."
As a left-leaning Libertarian, I can safely say I love all God's creatures. Especially when they've spent some time on my backyard grill.
Bear burgers, anyone?
At least they are busy drilling in the North Dakot "Bakken deposit". Funny how much less the power of the career Environmentalist lawyers have in North Dakota.
The Alaskan people have been wanting to drill in the Wildlife preserve on the north slope for years.
McCain doesn't want to drill up there? That bastard. What are his reasons behind this thinking?
MMmmmmm...Beeaaaar Burgerrrrszzz.
I hear bear meat is best cooked on a gas grill!
If the average car in the US got 35 mpg, we would be 100% oil independent.
What makes anyone think it would be cheaper if it were pumped here? We pump all our oil in Utah from US or Canadian sources, it is cheaper? Before we deface or endanger our natural scenery I want guarantees of cheaper.
Anon..
I don't think it would be cheaper. I think it would be a financial boon to sell oil on the world market at these prices! I'm all for more money in the US economy no matter who controls the cash. It leads to a better standard of life for the average citizen one way or another.
Post a Comment