Drill here, drill now... prophetic

#53
#53
IPorange said:
And it's being currently tapped. So prices will now be stable, right? right?

Huh.


24 billion a year.

Droski stated the US consumes 18 million a day.

18 million x 365.25 = 6,574,500,000. So this whole giant field is enough to supply the US's total needs for 4 years and some change. And it's the biggest field found in the last 30 or 40 years, according to your article. And this is assuming that demand stays the same.

Doesn't seem like very much to me, compared to all of that.
Click to expand...

Did I stutter? The field is bigger than Prudhoe Bay, and if that doesnt seem that much, then I guess I cant help you

Maybe if this president pushed Natural Gas as an alternative then we wouldnt have to worry about oil from Lybia (which sends us 0 barrels to the US)

West Texas Intermediate Crude is currently trading at $99 per barrel while Brent Crude is trading at $110. Why is that?
 
#54
#54
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Did I stutter? The field is bigger than Prudhoe Bay, and if that doesnt seem that much, then I guess I cant help you

Maybe if this president pushed Natural Gas as an alternative then we wouldnt have to worry about oil from Lybia (which sends us 0 barrels to the US)

West Texas Intermediate Crude is currently trading at $99 per barrel while Brent Crude is trading at $110. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Did I say you stuttered? The point was made that more oil here would stabilize prices. You post a story saying the proven reserves in the US were effectively doubled by this find... yet this doesn't seem to have had an effect on whether the current crisis is causing prices to fluctuate.


I broke down the math of why I don't think this amount or any other US field is as impressive as they are made out to be. I don't think 4 years worth of oil is a huge amount. Sorry.
 
#55
#55
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Bakken Oil Field in North Dakota has 24 billion barrels

Continental: Bakken's giant scope underappreciated - Oil & Gas Journal
Click to expand...


It seems those Numbers have been trumped considerably!


Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase US reserves by 10x

Quote:

In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana. With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
 
#56
#56
I should go bump the threads from last year when we talked about this. It was also littered with links trumpeting massive finds that ended the US's dependence on foreign oil.

EDIT: Wait, I don't have to. That story is dated 2008. Huh.
 
#57
#57
So you never answered...

Why is WTI trading at $99 and Brent is trading at $112?

Sorry to hear that you dont think the largest find in the past 40 years doesnt mean much to ya.
 
#58
#58
VolsNSkinsFan said:
So you never answered...

Why is WTI trading at $99 and Brent is trading at $112?

Sorry to hear that you dont think the largest find in the past 40 years doesnt mean much to ya.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I'll be wrong anyway, so maybe you should just tell me.

I'll be sure to come back and eat my crow when the US is no longer dependent on foreign oil thanks to this big find. When shall I do that? 2 years? 5 years? let me know.
 
#59
#59
IPorange said:
I broke down the math of why I don't think this amount or any other US field is as impressive as they are made out to be. I don't think 4 years worth of oil is a huge amount. Sorry.
Click to expand...

it's the effect on the overall price that is the question. particurally with oil being dollar denominated.

There has been massive reserves found and tapped in the natural gas domestically and despite out of control commodity inflation the natural gas price is near multi year lows.

NGM.GIF
 
#60
#60
droski said:
aren't you the one who consistantly argues palin has widespread support?
Click to expand...


That does not make her significant in this context.

the issue is whether someone who actually held a meaningful office at the relevant time can be "blamed" for the lack of domestic oil production.

there are two issues there. First is whether we want more domestic oil production. That is one debate.

Second issue is, assuming we do want more such production, can you blame Obama for not having more?

OP's note was that, had we started drilling 2-4 years ago, such wells would be on line now. I pointed out the idiocy of that comment (as though it were tough to do) because Obama was president for exactly one of the 48 months covered by that timeframe.

You noted that its really not any one president's fault,anyway, because there are a slew of decision-makers involved in this going back about 40 years or so. And I agree with that.

Including Palin in this discussion is ridiculous since she did not hold office in but one of the decision-making rules and for a relatively short period of time. To say that a person campaigning, who is naturally going to say what her constituency wants to hear, deserves some sort of credit, when she did not have to actually make decisions on this issue, is absurd.

To compare Palin's position to Obama's is even more ridiculous since she hasn't actually had to direct national energy policy.

As I say, it has long been realized by experts and commentators and pretty much every U.S. citizen since at least 1973 that dependence on foreign oil has the potential for seeding deep economic trouble for the U.S. But there has been a lot of disagreement about the best and safest way to deal with that.

Don't confuse the strength of the arguments on all sides of that debate, and as to all options that have been offered, with some sort of sophomoric, "Hey, Palin said we should drill more! Right on!" garbage in order to paint her as "right" or "correct" or "wise."

Quipping such slogans on the campaign trail is one thing. Implementing national energy policy, and dealing with the interests of about 15 states, is quite another.

Indeed, that difference is why even many in the GOP loathe the thought of her as POTUS. Its because they know that once you get past the slogans you encounter basically a complete vacuum of thought, reasoning ability, and knowledge about even the most fundamental things.
 
#61
#61
droski said:
it's the effect on the overall price that is the question. particurally with oil being dollar denominated.

There has been massive reserves found and tapped in the natural gas domestically and despite out of control commodity inflation the natural gas price is near multi year lows.

NGM.GIF
Click to expand...

So you think there are massive reserves in the US of comparable size relative to demand for oil? Because that is my main disagreement.
 
#62
#62
IPorange said:
I'm sure I'll be wrong anyway, so maybe you should just tell me.

I'll be sure to come back and eat my crow when the US is no longer dependent on foreign oil thanks to this big find. When shall I do that? 2 years? 5 years? let me know.
Click to expand...

then dont talk smack about stuff you dont know anything about

My article was dated 2/16/11 and came from the CEO of Continental Resources during his confrence call.


WTI is better oil than Brent and Brent is trading at an over 10% premium. Why is that?
 
#63
#63
VolsNSkinsFan said:
then dont talk smack about stuff you dont know anything about

My article was dated 2/16/11 and came from the CEO of Continental Resources during his confrence call.


WTI is better oil than Brent and Brent is trading at an over 10% premium. Why is that?
Click to expand...

How is the quality of the oil relevant to the overall supply?

You keep asking me questions you already know the answer to. Why is that?
 
#64
#64
IPorange said:
So you think there are massive reserves in the US of comparable size relative to demand for oil? Because that is my main disagreement.
Click to expand...

absolutely not, but i don't see why a say 30% increase in domestic production, all else equal, wouldn't have a significant effect on the oil price. as an example lybia isn't really a large producer, but the concern of that market being gone has raised the price significantly.
 
#65
#65
IPorange said:
How is the quality of the oil relevant to the overall supply?

You keep asking me questions you already know the answer to. Why is that?
Click to expand...

because its cheaper to refine and you get more gas out of a barrel which all = cheaper gasoline

Venezula will always export oil to us because their oil is crappy and our refineries are the only ones who can process it. Therefore they sell it to us for much cheaper than WIT or Bent (yes there are different types of Oil)

Brent is the type of oil that European countries are buying. We mainly use WTI, which usually demands a premium vs other Oils, but WTI is currently 10% cheaper than Brent because we are well supplied. Drilling in the Gulf would add to the supply and it would make WTI even cheaper

I am trying to get you to understand that we are drilling here and production has increased and will increase over the next few years and that the current increase in production here in the US is making a difference right now.
 
#66
#66
droski said:
absolutely not, but i don't see why a say 30% increase in domestic production, all else equal, wouldn't have a significant effect on the oil price. as an example lybia isn't really a large producer, but the concern of that market being gone has raised the price significantly.
Click to expand...

That just seems to be the nature of the market. It's more emotional than practical.
 
#67
#67
VolsNSkinsFan said:
because its cheaper to refine and you get more gas out of a barrel which all = cheaper gasoline

Venezula will always export oil to us because their oil is crappy and our refineries are the only ones who can process it. Therefore they sell it to us for much cheaper than WIT or Bent (yes there are different types of Oil)

Brent is the type of oil that European countries are buying. We mainly use WTI, which usually demands a premium vs other Oils, but WTI is currently 10% cheaper than Brent because we are well supplied. Drilling in the Gulf would add to the supply and it would make WTI even cheaper

I am trying to get you to understand that we are drilling here and production has increased and will increase over the next few years and that the current increase in production here in the US is making a difference right now.
Click to expand...
I am aware that there are different types of oil, although I do not know any detail.

Again, how is this relevant to the bottom-line deficit of oil domestically relative to demand, and with growing global demand in general?
 
#68
#68
IPorange said:
That just seems to be the nature of the market. It's more emotional than practical.
Click to expand...

obviously, but i'd argue recent history has shown the oil demand and supply to be more parabolic than linear. in other words a small increase in supply or decrease can and will significantly effect long term prices.
 
#69
#69
lawgator1 said:
That does not make her significant in this context.

the issue is whether someone who actually held a meaningful office at the relevant time can be "blamed" for the lack of domestic oil production.

there are two issues there. First is whether we want more domestic oil production. That is one debate.

Second issue is, assuming we do want more such production, can you blame Obama for not having more?

OP's note was that, had we started drilling 2-4 years ago, such wells would be on line now. I pointed out the idiocy of that comment (as though it were tough to do) because Obama was president for exactly one of the 48 months covered by that timeframe.

You noted that its really not any one president's fault,anyway, because there are a slew of decision-makers involved in this going back about 40 years or so. And I agree with that.

As do I. The last administration that tried to establish an energy policy was shouted down by liberals while being accused of being a part of big oil.

Including Palin in this discussion is ridiculous since she did not hold office in but one of the decision-making rules and for a relatively short period of time. To say that a person campaigning, who is naturally going to say what her constituency wants to hear, deserves some sort of credit, when she did not have to actually make decisions on this issue, is absurd.

You continue to underestimate this woman. While I don't really want her as POTUS I do respect the accomplishments she has made in every office she has held.

To compare Palin's position to Obama's is even more ridiculous since she hasn't actually had to direct national energy policy.

No, but she did direct a state energy policy and did it very well.

As I say, it has long been realized by experts and commentators and pretty much every U.S. citizen since at least 1973 that dependence on foreign oil has the potential for seeding deep economic trouble for the U.S. But there has been a lot of disagreement about the best and safest way to deal with that.

Don't confuse the strength of the arguments on all sides of that debate, and as to all options that have been offered, with some sort of sophomoric, "Hey, Palin said we should drill more! Right on!" garbage in order to paint her as "right" or "correct" or "wise."

Quipping such slogans on the campaign trail is one thing. Implementing national energy policy, and dealing with the interests of about 15 states, is quite another.

This point of view is part of the problem. It is not the interests of 15 states, it's the interest of the country.

Indeed, that difference is why even many in the GOP loathe the thought of her as POTUS. Its because they know that once you get past the slogans you encounter basically a complete vacuum of thought, reasoning ability, and knowledge about even the most fundamental things.

Again, you need to take an unbiased look at her accomplishments.
Click to expand...

Most objective people understand that we need to increase oil production and refining. The major problem is the "not in my backyard" thinking.
 
#70
#70
IPorange said:
I'm sure I'll be wrong anyway, so maybe you should just tell me.

I'll be sure to come back and eat my crow when the US is no longer dependent on foreign oil thanks to this big find. When shall I do that? 2 years? 5 years? let me know.
Click to expand...

So since the U.S. does not have enough oil to sustain it's own needs, then we should just give up. That makes allot of sense. Maybe we should tell China to just stop growing food since they cannot completely feed their own population:crazy:

According to the U.S. Dept. of Interior, they estimate the total volume of undiscovered, economically recoverable reserves at 134 billion barrels in the U.S. I believe that at a consumption rate of 18 MMBLS a day that is about 20 years worth. This does not include the oil shale reserves. In addition, increase in technology will improve recovery rates....not to mention the millions of high paying jobs generated by the oil industry.:hi:
 
#71
#71
IPorange said:
I am aware that there are different types of oil, although I do not know any detail.

Again, how is this relevant to the bottom-line deficit of oil domestically relative to demand, and with growing global demand in general?
Click to expand...

and increase in higher quality crude has a bigger effect than lower quality though i've always heard it argued our untapped supply was of the lower quality.
 
#72
#72
overseasorange2 said:
So since the U.S. does not have enough oil to sustain it's own needs, then we should just give up. That makes allot of sense. Maybe we should tell China to just stop growing food since they cannot completely feed their own population:crazy:

According to the U.S. Dept. of Interior, they estimate the total volume of undiscovered, economically recoverable reserves at 134 billion barrels in the U.S. I believe that at a consumption rate of 18 MMBLS a day that is about 20 years worth. This does not include the oil shale reserves. In addition, increase in technology will improve recovery rates....not to mention the millions of high paying jobs generated by the oil industry.:hi:
Click to expand...

So we have 20 years worth of oil under us. Then what?
 
#74
#74
IPorange said:
So we have 20 years worth of oil under us. Then what?
Click to expand...

I am comfortable that before that time we will think of something. In the 30 years I have been in the business, the technology to drill/find and develop oil reserves has advance light years. Things that used to take me weeks can be done in a couple of hours now.:thumbsup:
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top