View Full Version : Can we drill our way out?
rnrstar
June 13, 2008, 04:47 PM
All I keep hearing from the right is that the way to bring down oil prices is to drill more wells in the US. Today we burn some 20-21 million barrels of oil and only 8 of that comes from the US. In the early 70's we hit peak production.
My first question is based on that I just don't see how we can drill enough oil to make up that 12 million barrel difference and keep up with demand. Is it possible to make up that 12 million difference and keep up with demand.
Secondly, wouldn't an increase in production inspire an increase in demand making it impossible to keep up with an unchecked demand?
It seems to me that the only way out is to reduce our oil consumption. It seems to me that it would be much easier to reduce our demand from 20 to 8 than it would be to increase our production from 8 to 20. Not only that, we are talking about a finite resource that eventually as oil gets harder to pull out of the ground and it becomes more sour we won't be able to meet demand at the same costs today, thus driving the price up even more.
Coragyps
June 13, 2008, 05:20 PM
It seems to me that the only way out is to reduce our oil consumption.
Agreed. And I work in the oil industry. There's no way in hell we could increase our production enough to meet our current demand without annexing several countries - and some of them would object.
schu
June 13, 2008, 05:59 PM
There are some other options, unfortunately not anything ready to come on line yet. Coragyps is right, Mexico would rather supply us with drugs than oil, and why not, the profits are much greater.
One option is turning these miles and miles of mesquite trees into ethanol, but that won't be viable until they engineer a bacteria that can change cellulose into ethanol in one step. There are plans being developed to harvest the trees in bulk in a way that will renew the resource in a fifteen to twenty year time frame. I don't know how effective this will be, but this idea our government has funded to turn food into ethanol is for the shits.
Another is a company in El Paso which is engineering an algae that will make oil direct from the sun. They are developing a system of green houses that will grow the algae in tubes and will reclaim the water. Don't know how far off either of these schemes are, but both might work.
The real answer will be when gas gets to $10 - $20 a gallon. Then I won't be the only one on the highway driving 50 - 55 mph.
dlawbailey
June 13, 2008, 10:06 PM
The right doesn't even claim that drilling will make up the difference, if you listen carefully.
They want to open up all of Alaska and that is eventually going to happen.
Eventually, the negative environmental effects of other modes of getting oil and oil-like things out of the ground will be greater than the negative effects of drilling in Alaska.
sourdough
June 13, 2008, 10:33 PM
instead of drilling for more oil,simply making more efficient vehicles would be my choice,and the technology is here already
www.afstrinity.com
also ethanol and other bio fuels could replace plenty of oil,
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html
www.ethanol.org
www.efuel100.com
now my only wish is that GM would have a small diesel engine available in all their trucks and some cars
spamandham
June 14, 2008, 12:43 AM
My first question is based on that I just don't see how we can drill enough oil to make up that 12 million barrel difference and keep up with demand. Is it possible to make up that 12 million difference and keep up with demand.
Demand depends on price. Production depends on both price and cost of production. The only way to wean the US off oil, is to INCREASE the price.
I suggest that a fossil fuel tax high enough to make alternatives viable, would solve the energy crisis long before it really is a crisis.
Right now it's just an annoyance.
bleubird
June 14, 2008, 04:56 AM
The right doesn't even claim that drilling will make up the difference, if you listen carefully.
They want to open up all of Alaska and that is eventually going to happen.
Eventually, the negative environmental effects of other modes of getting oil and oil-like things out of the ground will be greater than the negative effects of drilling in Alaska.
All 580,000 sq. miles?
Whatever!
Never going to happen.
Oil has been clean compared to what the cold war did to Alaska.
Ask Rlogan about the mess that was made in the name of A Free World.
Homework dude!
bleu
crispy
June 14, 2008, 05:53 AM
Why didnt they suggest that you should use less energy per person? That would certainly help also :>
s2art
June 14, 2008, 10:19 AM
It seems to me that the only way out is to reduce our oil consumption.
Agreed. And I work in the oil industry. There's no way in hell we could increase our production enough to meet our current demand without annexing several countries - and some of them would object.
Well, depends on timescales, no? There is something like a trillion barrels of reclaimable oil in the oil shales. Current best estimates are approx $20-30 bbl to extract. Shell, amongst others, are working hard in this area. Expect to see major investment there over the next few years.
jayh
June 14, 2008, 08:30 PM
The right doesn't even claim that drilling will make up the difference, if you listen carefully.
They want to open up all of Alaska and that is eventually going to happen.
....
That's it.
"the Right" has a secret ambition to destroy all wild lands and drilling for oil is just a cover up. Some say this is because they are mad about "the Left"s secret plan to recruit everyone into homosexuality.
Additional drilling could stabilize the market and make speculation less profitable. And it certainly would 'reduce dependance on foreign oil'
jayh
June 14, 2008, 08:39 PM
There is the GTL program, turning natural gas into liquid fuel (currently diesel). Natural gas is plentiful and the GTL fuels are quite free of contaminants.
Any alternative fuel needs to run in existing cars for me to consider it viable. I sure as hell don't want to buy another car (especially not a new one) just to use an alternative fuel.
Alex MacDonald
June 14, 2008, 10:45 PM
I think the long range plan is for us to use up everyone else's oil first (at whatever the cost) and when all that oil is gone we will still have the oil here in the U.S. to use (and we will sell it to no one).
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.