$100 A Barrel Oil is on the Way

[WA_Vol]

Jesus dude, start over. Your premise was oil companies seemingly turning a blind eye to oil reserves because it suited them to do so. I posited that they have been trying to get into ANWAR (technology NOT the problem) but have been denied. Willingness to do so wasn't the problem, environmenalism was. Now to the Bakken, enviromentalists NOT the problem, technology has been. See, willingness to get to the oil isn't the issue, being hampered in doing so has been.

"Instead of developing the technology to access this oil..."

That's your quote. It's false. It's taken time but they've managed to come up with a means of doing it and are starting to do so. There will be more of it in the future. I don't know why you believe there is just some switch that gets thrown and people just start filling tankers up from spigots stuck in the ground. It just doesn't work that way.

Read this. It explains a lot of what is and has gone down in the Bakken.

The Bakken Trend: Lost Dutchmen Mine of the Oil Patch? - Seeking Alpha

Look your the one making comparisons between Anwar and Bakken.

No that wasn't my premise, but don't let that get in your way. What I said is they are doing it on their timetable, which is most profitable for them, not what is necesarily best for the consumer.

If it's false then, where's the oil? If they developed the technolgy then why haven't they brought these massive reserves online already? We are talking about companies with almost unlimited funds to invest in drilling and technology. If they don't have the technology yet, it's not because of a lack of resouces. What's been holding them back? Maybe because of their timetable?

what I don't get is people like you, who thinks everyone has the intelligence of Jed Clampett because they don't agree with you.

 

[hndog609]

Look your the one making comparisons between Anwar and Bakken.

No that wasn't my premise, but don't let that get in your way. What I said is they are doing it on their timetable, which is most profitable for them, not what is necesarily best for the consumer.

If it's false then, where's the oil? If they developed the technolgy then why haven't they brought these massive reserves online already? We are talking about companies with almost unlimited funds to invest in drilling and technology. If they don't have the technology yet, it's not because of a lack of resouces. What's been holding them back? Maybe because of their timetable?

what I don't get is people like you, who thinks everyone has the intelligence of Jed Clampett because they don't agree with you.

That is NOT what you said. You said this:

"Instead of developing the technology to access this oil". (#497)

Please see post #514. In my quote I clearly (I thought) made an analogous comparison between the Bakken and ANWAR trying to demonstrate where the DESIRE to obtain the product wasn't the issue you made it out to be. Somehow in your reply you take from this that I'm saying the Bakken is being hindered by environmental issues. I have no idea why.

Where's the oil? In that same post cited above you can see where I pointed out the Elm Coulee field averaged over 53,000 barrels a day last year. North Dakota's oil production jumped 329% from '06 to '07. Yet, it's like I never mentioned that.

Did you bother to read the link in my last post? Did you see the part where they specifically mention EOG, Marathon and Kodiak have already or are starting to set up shop in the Bakken? Did you catch the last line?

"The rush for The Bakken is finally on..."

Guess not.

Clearly you've been playing a bit loose with what I've said but the real kicker is you, through some kind of grammatical alchemy I suppose, take a social character reference to Jed in #518 to be some kind of reflection on you. It was playing to the image of some oil source so rich in sweet crude a gunshot could literally have it pouring out of the ground. Such an image is totally inaccurate with the chore of economically obtaining the oil from Bakken, this latter being a hurdle that only recently overcome. Regardless, at no time were you ever compared to Jed Clampett.

There is a difference in disagreeing with valid points brought up by two or more parties. You seem to have come to your conclusion and have little or no interest in debating facts that might call some of your premise into question. I'm hardly the only player in this mind you. I thought volinbham's #519 post was a very good one.

Anyway, there's little to be gained in discussions with a true believer. Actually, if it weren't for you I would not likely have come across that link.

The Bakken Trend: Lost Dutchmen Mine of the Oil Patch? - Seeking Alpha

It's the best I've seen so far on the subject so I guess I owe you thanks for that.

Go Vols.

 

[WA_Vol]

That is NOT what you said. You said this:

"Instead of developing the technology to access this oil". (#497)

Please see post #514. In my quote I clearly (I thought) made an analogous comparison between the Bakken and ANWAR trying to demonstrate where the DESIRE to obtain the product wasn't the issue you made it out to be. Somehow in your reply you take from this that I'm saying the Bakken is being hindered by environmental issues. I have no idea why.

Where's the oil? In that same post cited above you can see where I pointed out the Elm Coulee field averaged over 53,000 barrels a day last year. North Dakota's oil production jumped 329% from '06 to '07. Yet, it's like I never mentioned that.

Did you bother to read the link in my last post? Did you see the part where they specifically mention EOG, Marathon and Kodiak have already or are starting to set up shop in the Bakken? Did you catch the last line?

"The rush for The Bakken is finally on..."

Guess not.

Clearly you've been playing a bit loose with what I've said but the real kicker is you, through some kind of grammatical alchemy I suppose, take a social character reference to Jed in #518 to be some kind of reflection on you. It was playing to the image of some oil source so rich in sweet crude a gunshot could literally have it pouring out of the ground. Such an image is totally inaccurate with the chore of economically obtaining the oil from Bakken, this latter being a hurdle that only recently overcome. Regardless, at no time were you ever compared to Jed Clampett.

There is a difference in disagreeing with valid points brought up by two or more parties. You seem to have come to your conclusion and have little or no interest in debating facts that might call some of your premise into question. I'm hardly the only player in this mind you. I thought volinbham's #519 post was a very good one.

Anyway, there's little to be gained in discussions with a true believer. Actually, if it weren't for you I would not likely have come across that link.

The Bakken Trend: Lost Dutchmen Mine of the Oil Patch? - Seeking Alpha

It's the best I've seen so far on the subject so I guess I owe you thanks for that.

Go Vols.

There is no analogy between Anwar and Bakken.

Second If you go back and look I've sourced about 5 different articles addressing the size of the Bakken formation, and its development. Don't you think I would have already read the articles I referenced? I know some oil is being produced from the region. It's been mentioned in every one of them.

My comment was the timetable to bring this oil online and why companies with as much revenue as oil companies aren't trying to develop the oilfield faster.

Last did you think you would make a reference to Jed Clampett while quoting my post and not think I would think you were referring to me? Who else would I think you were referring to? Your not quoting anyone else's post.

 

[WA_Vol]

Brazil possibly has 2 of the 3 largest oil discoveries in the last 3 years:

Bloomberg.com: Latin America

 

[KB5252]

If gas prices get much worse I think I will have to buy a moped to travel the 75 mile round trip to work.

 

[hndog609]

There is no analogy between Anwar and Bakken.

Second If you go back and look I've sourced about 5 different articles addressing the size of the Bakken formation, and its development. Don't you think I would have already read the articles I referenced? I know some oil is being produced from the region. It's been mentioned in every one of them.

My comment was the timetable to bring this oil online and why companies with as much revenue as oil companies aren't trying to develop the oilfield faster.

Last did you think you would make a reference to Jed Clampett while quoting my post and not think I would think you were referring to me? Who else would I think you were referring to? Your not quoting anyone else's post.

If you didn't see what I was trying to do with the ANWAR/Bakken thing don't sweat it.

The quote I cited did not deal with a timetable, it dismissed that oil company's were interested in developing the technologies. Your words man. How fast they develop it? I thought the link I provided did a decent job of going over that. If you personally find the pace of recovery, whatever you set that to be, currently unsatisfactory...so be it. Your opinion, and it's yours to have. It will be interesting to follow now that they've actually started though, right?

Why would referencing anyone in a post be some kind of de facto comparison to you? It was part of an image set, nothing more. I regret you took it to mean anything else.

Oh, and thanks for the Bloomberg link. Interesting stuff.

 

[hndog609]

If gas prices get much worse I think I will have to buy a moped to travel the 75 mile round trip to work.

I have an aunt with a Prius. If I had the funds to buy one as a pure commuter I think I'd really consider it. I couldn't live with it as a primary vehicle though as I haul too much crap around.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I have an aunt with a Prius. If I had the funds to buy one as a pure commuter I think I'd really consider it. I couldn't live with it as a primary vehicle though as I haul too much crap around.

You could buy a Honda Civic 4-cylinder for about 6-8K less and get decent gas mileage, better resale value, and have fewer maintenace headaches. Please... listen to reason and purchase a 4-cylinder.

 

[hndog609]

You could buy a Honda Civic 4-cylinder for about 6-8K less and get decent gas mileage, better resale value, and have fewer maintenace headaches. Please... listen to reason and purchase a 4-cylinder.

One of the magazines (can't recall which) had a pretty thorough story along the lines you point out about how financially, over the long haul, the numbers for a good 4-cyl match up a lot better than some think. I have a Bronco (yikes!) that I use for hauling stuff around. For commuting to work I've got an older (i.e. paid for) Acura Legend. It's a 5-speed and gets decent, if not great, mpg.

 

[droski]

when you factor in the fact that hybrids are 5-8K more expensive then the non-hybrid versions and the fact that they aren't built to last nearly as long as regular cars I don't see why anyone would buy a hybrid unless they commuted over 50 miles a day.

 

[coffeevol]

I just traded my Ford Sportrac 4 door pick up for a mecury milan, the gas difference is awesome. When I filled my truck up with the 22 gallon tank with dash read 390 mile to empty, so I filled up the first time in the milan last night and it is a 16 gallon tank and the dash told me 415 miles to empty. The truck was getting 18 mpg and the car now reads 26 miles per gallon. As a realtor I drive ALOT, so this is going to save me roughly $200 or more per month. And on the Hwy the Milan will get 30+ all day, what do you guys think? Good Choice?

 

[myrobbins7]

I just traded my Ford Sportrac 4 door pick up for a mecury milan, the gas difference is awesome. When I filled my truck up with the 22 gallon tank with dash read 390 mile to empty, so I filled up the first time in the milan last night and it is a 16 gallon tank and the dash told me 415 miles to empty. The truck was getting 18 mpg and the car now reads 26 miles per gallon. As a realtor I drive ALOT, so this is going to save me roughly $200 or more per month. And on the Hwy the Milan will get 30+ all day, what do you guys think? Good Choice?

Not bad at all if your looking at it from a gas saving point. Heck, I would kill to get 18 MPG in my Hummer.

 

[allvol123]

Well at least the greenies have to be happy. Oil goes up and up.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I just traded my Ford Sportrac 4 door pick up for a mecury milan, the gas difference is awesome. When I filled my truck up with the 22 gallon tank with dash read 390 mile to empty, so I filled up the first time in the milan last night and it is a 16 gallon tank and the dash told me 415 miles to empty. The truck was getting 18 mpg and the car now reads 26 miles per gallon. As a realtor I drive ALOT, so this is going to save me roughly $200 or more per month. And on the Hwy the Milan will get 30+ all day, what do you guys think? Good Choice?

It's a no brainer... trucks will obviously have lower gas mileage than a car for the most part.

On a side note, I have no pity for people that went out and purchased 8-cylinder SUVs when all they needed was a good minivan to carry the kids/soccer equipment. They can get in the mid-20's on the highway with a minivan as opposed to not even breaking 20 mpg with your std SUV. But of course, most people buy cars because of how they look or status, or whatever instead of utility. But that is a conversation for another day...

 

[droski]

i don't understand why pickup trucks and SUVs don't have the same emmision and fuel efficiency standards as other cars. it's complete BS.

 

[allvol123]

huh? Why should they have to? Why should any of them be required to have any?

 

[MG1968]

CAFE regulations are complete BS from the start.

 

[utvolpj]

I just traded my Ford Sportrac 4 door pick up for a mecury milan, the gas difference is awesome. When I filled my truck up with the 22 gallon tank with dash read 390 mile to empty, so I filled up the first time in the milan last night and it is a 16 gallon tank and the dash told me 415 miles to empty. The truck was getting 18 mpg and the car now reads 26 miles per gallon. As a realtor I drive ALOT, so this is going to save me roughly $200 or more per month. And on the Hwy the Milan will get 30+ all day, what do you guys think? Good Choice?

I must say I'm very impressed with your change. :hi: How's the ride in the Milan? I've heard they are pretty nice

 

[droski]

huh? Why should they have to? Why should any of them be required to have any?

there is zero question that these standards reduce polution and decrease our demand for oil. take it from someone who lives in a city whose smog was 10 times worse 40 years ago despite having aprox 1/10th of the current cars on the road. edit: now we can argue that the ones put in place say in the last 10-15 years are bs, but let's make the trucks at least adhere to 80s standards ok?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

i don't understand why pickup trucks and SUVs don't have the same emmision and fuel efficiency standards as other cars. it's complete BS.

They don't need them. If people want to have fuel economy, they should make better decisions when they are in the showroom. You don't need the gov't mandating fuel economy levels. People are buying SUVs and then complaining about the gas mileage. Idiots should have made a wiser choice at the time of purchase. You litterally have to go out of your way to buy an SUV instead of a minivan. You can buy a decent minivan that meets your needs and has better gas mileage for $10-20k less than your average Tahoes(low end) or Yukon Denalis (high end)...

 

[MG1968]

yep, my 05 Chrysler Town & Country gets 28-30mpg on highway trips. And that's with 4 people in it and the AC keeping things cool inside.

 

[allvol123]

there is zero question that these standards reduce polution and decrease our demand for oil. take it from someone who lives in a city whose smog was 10 times worse 40 years ago despite having aprox 1/10th of the current cars on the road. edit: now we can argue that the ones put in place say in the last 10-15 years are bs, but let's make the trucks at least adhere to 80s standards ok?

My point is the consumer should drive these choices, not legislation.

 

[hndog609]

They don't need them. If people want to have fuel economy, they should make better decisions when they are in the showroom. You don't need the gov't mandating fuel economy levels. People are buying SUVs and then complaining about the gas mileage. Idiots should have made a wiser choice at the time of purchase. You litterally have to go out of your way to buy an SUV instead of a minivan. You can buy a decent minivan that meets your needs and has better gas mileage for $10-20k less than your average Tahoes(low end) or Yukon Denalis (high end)...

I agree with this. I have a V8 Bronco and a V8 CJ6. They are stone-crap for gas. They are not my primary means of transport as that is my Acura. The CJ is a toy and you don't get to whine about your toy's mileage. I'd love to get better out of the Bronco but hey, that's for towing/hauling/4wd applications. It has a niche. Anybody that buys something that has a sticker on the window that tells them the vehicle gets 18mpg has little right to bitch.

 

[coffeevol]

I must say I'm very impressed with your change. :hi: How's the ride in the Milan? I've heard they are pretty nice

Yeah it rides real good, I got it with a stick so that makes it fun, has decent get up and go. so over the week end I was averaging 28 mpg so it is all good.

As for someone else's comment about govt mandating of automotive choice I am of the belief that that market will take care of its self, it did for me anyways, I got a $700 gasoline bill for the month of March, I started watching where I drive and downgrade from a 4 door truck to a sedan. These things have a way of working out, ALWAYS know that less govt is better govt

 

[WA_Vol]

17 Billion in 3 months.

BP and Shell post big profits in era of record oil prices: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance