Letter to Congress to Allow Domestic Oil Production

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:57 pm

We all know that having the economy in the tank due to the Banker Fiasco lowered the price of oil. But lets not give up and let the unfriendly oil rich countries play games with our life.
Drilling here helps lower the price, and reduces the grip of the despots, Foreign and Domestic.

The link to join in:

http://www.capitolconnect.com/partnersh ... 0&adno=517

dieselenthusiast · **Posted:** Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:26 pm

Drill baby drill and create over a million new JOBS for Americans. I support it! And while we’re at it, we can practice Coal Liquefaction and make good diesel fuel!

retmil46 · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:47 am

And also make GTL synthetic diesel out of natural gas. No need to convert vehicles to CNG or create a new fueling infrastructure.

geordi · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:20 am

I will fully support things like this, if you can answer me these questions:

With barely 20% of the EXISTING oil leases being actively developed or pumped, what incentive will the oil industry have to pump one extra drop out of a new hole? How can you prove that these types of initiatives aren't simply a grab for even more land leases, locking and blocking the potential for REAL competition that might lower costs? Pumping more lowers their profits. There is ZERO incentive for any business to willingly reduce their own profits. Lock up FUTURE supplies of profit with guarantees of exclusive access, now that they can be interested in!

Or better yet... How will ANY start-up development (IF it progresses beyond the land-lease agreement at all) affect the oil prices in the slightest, when NOT ONE DROP will see daylight on the market for a decade or more?

Drill baby drill? That only works if the Oil Industry is that big ugly guy in prison, and America just dropped the soap. No matter how you slice it, the Taxpayer gets screwed.

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:56 am

geordi wrote:

I will fully support things like this, if you can answer me these questions:

With barely 20% of the EXISTING oil leases being actively developed or pumped, what incentive will the oil industry have to pump one extra drop out of a new hole? How can you prove that these types of initiatives aren't simply a grab for even more land leases, locking and blocking the potential for REAL competition that might lower costs? Pumping more lowers their profits. There is ZERO incentive for any business to willingly reduce their own profits. Lock up FUTURE supplies of profit with guarantees of exclusive access, now that they can be interested in!

Or better yet... How will ANY start-up development (IF it progresses beyond the land-lease agreement at all) affect the oil prices in the slightest, when NOT ONE DROP will see daylight on the market for a decade or more?

Drill baby drill? That only works if the Oil Industry is that big ugly guy in prison, and America just dropped the soap. No matter how you slice it, the Taxpayer gets screwed.

Keep in mind that the anti drill people have lawyers who file endless nuisance injunctions to stop the oil exploration companies from drilling. Like any good business owner why would you take a risk drilling if you have to spend more money on legal costs than drilling. Thank God the oil in the Dakotas is such a shure thing that they can afford good Law firms to put the clowns in place. Another fact on leases, they cost money and who gets money for doing nothing? Our Government, they get paid either directly for a lease on federal land and taxes if the land is private.

kccrd · **Joined:** Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:35 pm **Posts:** 267

It does not take 10 years to get oil to market from a newly drilled well it takes about 10 months you pump it its shipped to a refinery refined and sold. I have 2 cousins in the oil and natural gas business they say the biggest problem are all the unnecessary government regulations that drive up the cost of recovery. We have plenty of oil and natural gas it just needs to be recovered.

UFO · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:11 pm

You going to have to pay the oil companies to develop domestic resources now. Oil is too cheap. Not that it will make any difference in supply since the US has only 5% of the world's reserves.

WWV · **Joined:** Mon May 15, 2006 1:01 pm **Posts:** 121

I've also heard that oil companies up in Wyoming are laying people off because of the current price of oil. When the price goes up, they turn the pumps back on....

Supposedly they're only getting $10 a barrel straight from the ground. That tells me that we have the capability to pull more, but don't because of $$$. Now, we probably could use more drilling to meet our demand, but if companies here aren't going to do, who is?

Food for thought with absolutely no verification, just hearsay.

WWV

midwest · **Joined:** Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:03 am **Posts:** 173

UFO wrote:

You going to have to pay the oil companies to develop domestic resources now. Oil is too cheap. Not that it will make any difference in supply since the US has only 5% of the world's reserves.

Google "bakken reserve" "shale reserves" and "coal reserves" and you might get a different perspective on that 5% number. Oil or some form of it will be flowing for as long as we need it.

UFO · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:10 pm

midwest wrote:

UFO wrote:

You going to have to pay the oil companies to develop domestic resources now. Oil is too cheap. Not that it will make any difference in supply since the US has only 5% of the world's reserves.

Google "bakken reserve" "shale reserves" and "coal reserves" and you might get a different perspective on that 5% number. Oil or some form of it will be flowing for as long as we need it.

But at what cost? Shale, tar sands, coal all require much more energy to make liquid fuels than foreign crude. These resources will never be developed with oil at such a low price.

midwest · **Joined:** Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:03 am **Posts:** 173

UFO wrote:

midwest wrote:

UFO wrote:

You going to have to pay the oil companies to develop domestic resources now. Oil is too cheap. Not that it will make any difference in supply since the US has only 5% of the world's reserves.

Google "bakken reserve" "shale reserves" and "coal reserves" and you might get a different perspective on that 5% number. Oil or some form of it will be flowing for as long as we need it.

But at what cost? Shale, tar sands, coal all require much more energy to make liquid fuels than foreign crude. These resources will never be developed with oil at such a low price.

Very true......with today's technology. However, the bakken is good old liquid gold, and lots of it it seems. I was more interested in your 5% number. Now don't go moving the goal posts on me!

dieselenthusiast · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:39 pm

The Governor of Wyoming said that his state has enough coal to supply the Nation with diesel fuel for the next 50+ years. According to him, the process for making diesel from coal is cheap, clean, and provides other benefits. However, trying to open new refineries to accommodate these new forms of technology is nearly impossible with all the government restrictions.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:54 am

dieselenthusiast wrote:

The Governor of Wyoming said that his state has enough coal to supply the Nation with diesel fuel for the next 50+ years. According to him, the process for making diesel from coal is cheap, clean, and provides other benefits. However, trying to open new refineries to accommodate these new forms of technology is nearly impossible with all the government restrictions.

Price for coal to diesel fuel conversion as quoted by the Governor of Montana was equivalent to $35/barrel oil. If that's correct, even at today's prices it's still a cheaper alternative.

UFO · **Posted:** Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:04 pm

midwest wrote:

UFO wrote:

midwest wrote:

UFO wrote:

You going to have to pay the oil companies to develop domestic resources now. Oil is too cheap. Not that it will make any difference in supply since the US has only 5% of the world's reserves.

Google "bakken reserve" "shale reserves" and "coal reserves" and you might get a different perspective on that 5% number. Oil or some form of it will be flowing for as long as we need it.

But at what cost? Shale, tar sands, coal all require much more energy to make liquid fuels than foreign crude. These resources will never be developed with oil at such a low price.

Very true......with today's technology. However, the bakken is good old liquid gold, and lots of it it seems. I was more interested in your 5% number. Now don't go moving the goal posts on me!

I thought we were talking about oil reserves. Shale and tar require different/new technology and are not currently recoverable. According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves the US has only 1.7% of the worlds oil reserves.

ATXKJ · **Posted:** Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:27 pm

Shale oil is recoverable - but it's expensive - you need a sustained price of over $100/barrel

midwest · **Joined:** Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:03 am **Posts:** 173

UFO wrote:

midwest wrote:

UFO wrote:

midwest wrote:

UFO wrote:

You going to have to pay the oil companies to develop domestic resources now. Oil is too cheap. Not that it will make any difference in supply since the US has only 5% of the world's reserves.

Google "bakken reserve" "shale reserves" and "coal reserves" and you might get a different perspective on that 5% number. Oil or some form of it will be flowing for as long as we need it.

But at what cost? Shale, tar sands, coal all require much more energy to make liquid fuels than foreign crude. These resources will never be developed with oil at such a low price.

Very true......with today's technology. However, the bakken is good old liquid gold, and lots of it it seems. I was more interested in your 5% number. Now don't go moving the goal posts on me!

I thought we were talking about oil reserves. Shale and tar require different/new technology and are not currently recoverable. According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves the US has only 1.7% of the worlds oil reserves.

You might want to check out what our largest supplier, Canada, is doing with tar sands before you say it is not "recoverable". And they have a hell of a lot of it, and we have even more shale. When the price is right we will develop ways to bring it to market---rest assured on that. I have never fallen for this myth that we are running out of oil, and I have heard that since I was 10 yrs old.

Also, the not-so-nice bottom line is: The worlds resources belong to the country with the most powerful military. In a crises, if our very survival depended on it, we would go get it. Just like soldiers have gone after resources since the beginning of man.

UFO · **Posted:** Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:13 pm

midwest wrote:

You might want to check out what our largest supplier, Canada, is doing with tar sands before you say it is not "recoverable". And they have a hell of a lot of it, and we have even more shale. When the price is right we will develop ways to bring it to market---rest assured on that. I have never fallen for this myth that we are running out of oil, and I have heard that since I was 10 yrs old.

Also, the not-so-nice bottom line is: The worlds resources belong to the country with the most powerful military. In a crises, if our very survival depended on it, we would go get it. Just like soldiers have gone after resources since the beginning of man.

I am very well aware of what Canada is doing with tar sands. They need LOTS of natural gas to recover oil, and retmil46 is correct in saying you need sustained market prices over $100 a barrel for tar sand oil to be feasible. Shale recovery is similar in cost of recovery, and needs lots and lots of water, which happens to be in very short supply in Colorado's Roan plateau.

For the record, I have NEVER made the claim we are "running out of oil", that has no bearing on the conversation. My original point remains, you will not get resource development with current oil prices no matter what the US government is called on to do, unless you want to flush money down the drain. My other point is we cannot exploit domestic sources of oil to affect the world market -- we just don't have enough. It's a global market, and we cannot dominate it. Our path is clear - develop alternatives to petroleum so we can ensure our economic security.

kccrd · **Joined:** Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:35 pm **Posts:** 267

I also remember as a kid in the 70s all the newspapers were saying that because the earth was warming up that the glaciers were going to melt and that all the cities near the ocean would be under water in a decade including Miami. Well Miami is still there and is just fine except for all the illegal aliens.

chadhargis · **Posted:** Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:59 pm

Follow the dollars folks.

Nothing is going to happen until it's profitable for someone to do it.

No matter where you stand on the global warming issue, there is no denying, the scare tactics put forth have made a lot of people wealthy. If it didn't, you wouldn't hear anything about it.

It's the same with oil production. I think there is a lot of oil still untapped, but it is a finate resource. Wouldn't it be nice if we could develop more efficient ways of using what's left, as well as alternative fuels, NOW, before we HAVE to? It just makes sense.

But it's never going to happen as long as people are making money. When the oil dries up, then there will be money to be made with other technologies, and you'll see people going great guns to develop it and make money.

Sad but true. The world is a huge business.

ATXKJ · **Posted:** Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:08 pm

No, No, No, in the 70's we were having global cooling - new Ice Age
Warming wasn't until the 80's

Letter to Congress to Allow Domestic Oil Production

Who is online