This stuff really does cause many promblems. Even wars. We can all hope man kind will find a better way.
Oil?
- Thread starter djv
- Start date
that's one way to look at it. yet another way is that the wars are not caused by oil but by the a-holes who run this country
theGibber1 said:
Not nearly enough. Sure could go a long way to at least keeping us about even instead of costing so much. Can't stand this nation building and lack of direction. If we're going to nation build, Iraq might as well pay some of the tab. I was for us going in over there, but my biggest fear was us becoming some glorified peace keeping/police force. Our soldiers are not trained to do this, and they are sitting ducks. Sure wish the French or the Germans would lend some soldiers to do some guard duty!
Ah the need for this black gold started giveing problems by WW II
Not many remember that Japan got and still today gets 40/50/% of it's oil from You and Me the USA. We were pushing Japan to get out of China and were cuting the supply to Japan in 1940 and were talking of stronger steps in 1941. We were right in doing so because of Japans push to a bigger war. We have our oil reserve now. We were not the first to think of that. Japan had over 18 months supply in storage before they were bold enough to attack us at Pearl. Our cutting of oil supply was there excuse they used for years for the attack. Back then We didnt need a huge reserve. We were able to take care of our self with all the oil we needed till 1960. We then started importing. We never thought of conserving back then. Now of course were starting to. Just think before they started bringing all that oil out of the ground in middle east late 40's early 50's no one gave a dam.
Then all of a sudden 1973 came and we didn't know we had growen to 30% of our oil comeing from other countries. Still we didn't rush to conserve. There was lines at the stations and gas was close to 2 bucks. Im not sure why we let 30 years slip by and did so little to help our selfs. In stead we built bigger trucks and SUV's and act like we dont give a dam. So that's why I hope we get it right soon. Not for us old guys here. But for all you guys under age 35/40. You will have the problem and your kids of paying for all the mistakes made last 40 years. And when it gets real tight. One might think another war or two might just come a long. And we may lose more good folks for OIL.
Not many remember that Japan got and still today gets 40/50/% of it's oil from You and Me the USA. We were pushing Japan to get out of China and were cuting the supply to Japan in 1940 and were talking of stronger steps in 1941. We were right in doing so because of Japans push to a bigger war. We have our oil reserve now. We were not the first to think of that. Japan had over 18 months supply in storage before they were bold enough to attack us at Pearl. Our cutting of oil supply was there excuse they used for years for the attack. Back then We didnt need a huge reserve. We were able to take care of our self with all the oil we needed till 1960. We then started importing. We never thought of conserving back then. Now of course were starting to. Just think before they started bringing all that oil out of the ground in middle east late 40's early 50's no one gave a dam.
Then all of a sudden 1973 came and we didn't know we had growen to 30% of our oil comeing from other countries. Still we didn't rush to conserve. There was lines at the stations and gas was close to 2 bucks. Im not sure why we let 30 years slip by and did so little to help our selfs. In stead we built bigger trucks and SUV's and act like we dont give a dam. So that's why I hope we get it right soon. Not for us old guys here. But for all you guys under age 35/40. You will have the problem and your kids of paying for all the mistakes made last 40 years. And when it gets real tight. One might think another war or two might just come a long. And we may lose more good folks for OIL.
Here's an article written in 1997...
Get ready for another oil shock!
Towards the end is a good graph. It sums up with...
The permanent global oil shortage will begin when the world's oil demand exceeds global production--i.e., about 2010 if normal oil-fields decline occurs, or as early as 2000 if the world's key oil producer, Saudi Arabia, has serious political problems that curtail its export
This foreseeable energy/oil crisis will affect everyone. Governments will have the highest priorities for transportation fuels during an emergency. A sudden global crude oil shortage of 5% could bring back the gasoline lines of the 1970s--to the American public's surprise and dismay. But this time the oil shortage will be permanent.
Thus the question is not whether but when the foreseeable permanent oil crunch will occur. This next paralyzing and permanent oil shock will not be solved by any redistribution patterns or by economic cleverness, because it will be a consequence of pending and inexorable depletion of the world's conventional crude oil supply. Few economists can bring themselves to accept that the global oil supply is geologically finite.
The global price of oil after the supply crunch should follow the simplest economic law of supply and demand: There will be a major increase in crude oil and all other fuels' prices, accompanied by global hyperinflation, rationing, etc. After the associated economic implosion, many of the world's developed societies may look like today's Russia. The United States may be competing with China for every tanker of oil, with the Persian Gulf oil exporters preferring Chinese rockets to American paper dollars for their oil.
The economic and social ramifications of the coming oil shock will require serious planning worldwide.
The global oil shortage we now can foresee will differ from the 1973 and 1979 oil-price surges, which were the result of political moves by the exporting countries. Then, global buyers began searching immediately for oil supplies during the Iran-Iraq War, which produced the world's greatest-ever oil exploration effort, from 1979 to 1985. Unfortunately, their discovery rate was much lower than earlier, and few giant fields were found. The oil field "whales" had all been fished out.
The fact of the matter is we need leadership that will mandate a reduction in oil consumption with viable conservation measures, and also work with the G-8 countries in putting some limits in place. Unfortunately the present administration asks us to consume more and his opponent has said nothing on the matter, playing political dodgeball.
Meanwhile the Chinese economy is white hot, is following our lead, and will soon consume oil at a pace that will make us look like paupers.
Welcome to the Brave New World!
Cheers!
Get ready for another oil shock!
Towards the end is a good graph. It sums up with...
The permanent global oil shortage will begin when the world's oil demand exceeds global production--i.e., about 2010 if normal oil-fields decline occurs, or as early as 2000 if the world's key oil producer, Saudi Arabia, has serious political problems that curtail its export
This foreseeable energy/oil crisis will affect everyone. Governments will have the highest priorities for transportation fuels during an emergency. A sudden global crude oil shortage of 5% could bring back the gasoline lines of the 1970s--to the American public's surprise and dismay. But this time the oil shortage will be permanent.
Thus the question is not whether but when the foreseeable permanent oil crunch will occur. This next paralyzing and permanent oil shock will not be solved by any redistribution patterns or by economic cleverness, because it will be a consequence of pending and inexorable depletion of the world's conventional crude oil supply. Few economists can bring themselves to accept that the global oil supply is geologically finite.
The global price of oil after the supply crunch should follow the simplest economic law of supply and demand: There will be a major increase in crude oil and all other fuels' prices, accompanied by global hyperinflation, rationing, etc. After the associated economic implosion, many of the world's developed societies may look like today's Russia. The United States may be competing with China for every tanker of oil, with the Persian Gulf oil exporters preferring Chinese rockets to American paper dollars for their oil.
The economic and social ramifications of the coming oil shock will require serious planning worldwide.
The global oil shortage we now can foresee will differ from the 1973 and 1979 oil-price surges, which were the result of political moves by the exporting countries. Then, global buyers began searching immediately for oil supplies during the Iran-Iraq War, which produced the world's greatest-ever oil exploration effort, from 1979 to 1985. Unfortunately, their discovery rate was much lower than earlier, and few giant fields were found. The oil field "whales" had all been fished out.
The fact of the matter is we need leadership that will mandate a reduction in oil consumption with viable conservation measures, and also work with the G-8 countries in putting some limits in place. Unfortunately the present administration asks us to consume more and his opponent has said nothing on the matter, playing political dodgeball.
Meanwhile the Chinese economy is white hot, is following our lead, and will soon consume oil at a pace that will make us look like paupers.
Welcome to the Brave New World!
Cheers!
as i said
as i said
it`s time to seriously look for an alternative....if anything good comes out of the middle eastern morass,it will be the realization that we can`t leave ourselves so vulnerable to oil dependence....
conservation might help,but it`s just a stopgap....as the previous writer indicated,the china`s of the world are going to put a serious strain on supply......
it`s really time to get serious about an alternative energy source....
it`s so obvious it`s scary...but,everybody has their hands in the oil kitty....
money talks...
as i said
it`s time to seriously look for an alternative....if anything good comes out of the middle eastern morass,it will be the realization that we can`t leave ourselves so vulnerable to oil dependence....
conservation might help,but it`s just a stopgap....as the previous writer indicated,the china`s of the world are going to put a serious strain on supply......
it`s really time to get serious about an alternative energy source....
it`s so obvious it`s scary...but,everybody has their hands in the oil kitty....
money talks...
GW you are so right money talks.
You know so many say relax look at Europe there paying 4 bucks. But you see there is a differance. It does not bother the people as bad there because there average miles per year are 6/7 K They just dont drive all over as we do. And dont have as far to go. Our average here is 14/15 k. In fact out west it's nothing to put 20K on a car per year. Japan average is even less then Europe. And in Japan if you have one car in afamily your doing good. They dont need three car garges in Europe or Japan. So when were at 2 bucks here were allready in there range.
You know so many say relax look at Europe there paying 4 bucks. But you see there is a differance. It does not bother the people as bad there because there average miles per year are 6/7 K They just dont drive all over as we do. And dont have as far to go. Our average here is 14/15 k. In fact out west it's nothing to put 20K on a car per year. Japan average is even less then Europe. And in Japan if you have one car in afamily your doing good. They dont need three car garges in Europe or Japan. So when were at 2 bucks here were allready in there range.
Three-fourths of oil and gas leases on federal lands aren't producing
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
By David Pace, Associated Press
WASHINGTON ? Nearly three-fourths of the 40 million acres of public land currently leased for oil and gas development in the continental United States outside Alaska isn't producing any oil or gas, federal records show, even as the Bush administration pushes to open more environmentally sensitive public lands for oil and gas development.
An Associated Press computer analysis of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) records found that 80 percent of federal lands leased for oil and gas production in Wyoming are producing no oil or gas. Nor are 83 percent of the leased acres in Montana, 77 percent in Utah, 71 percent in Colorado, 36 percent in New Mexico, and 99 percent in Nevada.
How much exploration has occurred on the nearly 30 million acres of nonproducing public land leases is difficult to say. BLM officials could provide no details on the number of exploratory wells drilled on those leases, despite repeated requests for that information over the past two months.
But with so much public land already available for exploration, environmental groups and local landowners are questioning why the Bush administration is pushing to lease still more federal land to the oil and gas industry, particularly in areas that the groups and some lawmakers want protected as federal wilderness areas.
"The aggressive leasing of public land pushed by the Bush administration is a land grab, pure and simple, giving industry more and more control over public land while costing taxpayers millions of dollars," said Peter Morton, a resource economist with the Wilderness Society.
Morton said the leases, which companies can lock up for 10 years with annual rents of only $2 to $3 an acre, are an economic boon to some companies because they count as assets that can make debt refinancing easier while also attracting potential investors.
The Energy Task Force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney asked the BLM three years ago to find ways to open new federal lands to oil and gas leasing and to speed up the approval of drilling permits. To meet increased demand for natural gas, the task force said drilling on federal land will have to double by 2020.
Interior Secretary Gale Norton agreed in settling a lawsuit with the state of Utah last year to halt all reviews of public lands in the West for new wilderness protection and to withdraw that protected status from some 3 million acres in Utah.
That decision, which conservation groups have asked a federal appeals court to overturn, cleared the way for oil and gas leasing in millions more acres of potential wilderness in Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico.
In Colorado last month, some of the 70 parcels BLM offered for oil and gas leasing were in an area proposed for wilderness designation in legislation introduced by Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado. Several other parcels in the proposed wilderness area were withdrawn from the lease sale at the last minute. In neighboring Utah, the BLM has sold 26 oil and gas leases since November in areas eligible for wilderness designation.
"These are incredible, beautiful, and remote lands that have proven wilderness values," DeGette said when she introduced her wilderness bill. "However, they are now open to the full force of the draconian Bush energy policy, which proposes to open up thousands of our public lands to oil and gas development."
Since Cheney's task force handed down its recommendations, the BLM has completed a study of impediments to oil and gas exploration and development, speeded up approvals of drilling permits, and begun expedited updates of land use plans in 21 areas, almost half of which hold out the potential for more oil and gas development.
Tom Lonnie, the BLM's assistant director for minerals, realty, and resource protection, said the government can protect environmentally sensitive areas that are leased for oil and gas exploration by including restrictions in the lease agreement. But Lonnie said the administration has no control over when and where exploratory drilling occurs on federal leases.
"A lot of these areas where existing leases are being held onto may have low potential for production, based on industry analysis now," he said. "The industry is out there drilling the wells and doing the exploration, not us."
Even as more land is opened for leasing, it's questionable whether the industry has the resources to explore it. The Cheney task force concluded that very few new onshore oil drilling rigs have been built since the mid-1980s because of price volatility in the oil field supply and service sectors.
And the percentage of wells drilled in the United States since 2000 that are considered exploratory has declined slightly, when compared with the previous four years, according to data compiled by the Energy Information Administration.
A recent Wilderness Society study found that BLM has approved more than 25,000 drilling permits for public lands over the past decade, but the industry had drilled only about 19,000 new wells during that period.
"Even without additional leasing, if the current inventory of nonproducing leases were placed into production, the scale of drilling on public lands would increase dramatically, as would the degradation of lands where drilling is wholly inappropriate," the report concluded.
For oil companies, vast holdings of federal oil and gas leases, even if undeveloped, show up in their financial records as assets that help attract investors.
"Absolutely," said Mark Burford, director of investor relations for Tom Brown Inc., a Denver-based independent oil company. Tom Brown has more than 850,000 acres of federal land under lease, but just 22 percent is listed as producing, according to BLM records.
"In our investor presentations, we talk about the very large inventory of drilling locations on our acres that are prospective, and a lot of that would still be undeveloped," Burford said. "But based on our knowledge of the producing areas and the formations, that acreage is very prospective and very likely to work out as far as becoming producing."
Tom Brown is one of a half-dozen large oil companies that in recent years have exceeded the federal limit on the number of leased acres they can control in any one state. BLM officials acknowledged that they have granted repeated extensions for the companies to comply with the law, instead of exercising their legal right to cancel leases of companies in violation of the law.
Those six companies ? Tom Brown, Encana Oil and Gas, Anadarko, BP Amoco, Devon Energy, and Marathon Oil ? together controlled 3.9 million acres of federal oil and gas leases in March, according to BLM records. Just 1.2 million acres, or 30.8 percent of the total, is actually producing oil and gas.
Source: Associated Press
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
By David Pace, Associated Press
WASHINGTON ? Nearly three-fourths of the 40 million acres of public land currently leased for oil and gas development in the continental United States outside Alaska isn't producing any oil or gas, federal records show, even as the Bush administration pushes to open more environmentally sensitive public lands for oil and gas development.
An Associated Press computer analysis of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) records found that 80 percent of federal lands leased for oil and gas production in Wyoming are producing no oil or gas. Nor are 83 percent of the leased acres in Montana, 77 percent in Utah, 71 percent in Colorado, 36 percent in New Mexico, and 99 percent in Nevada.
How much exploration has occurred on the nearly 30 million acres of nonproducing public land leases is difficult to say. BLM officials could provide no details on the number of exploratory wells drilled on those leases, despite repeated requests for that information over the past two months.
But with so much public land already available for exploration, environmental groups and local landowners are questioning why the Bush administration is pushing to lease still more federal land to the oil and gas industry, particularly in areas that the groups and some lawmakers want protected as federal wilderness areas.
"The aggressive leasing of public land pushed by the Bush administration is a land grab, pure and simple, giving industry more and more control over public land while costing taxpayers millions of dollars," said Peter Morton, a resource economist with the Wilderness Society.
Morton said the leases, which companies can lock up for 10 years with annual rents of only $2 to $3 an acre, are an economic boon to some companies because they count as assets that can make debt refinancing easier while also attracting potential investors.
The Energy Task Force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney asked the BLM three years ago to find ways to open new federal lands to oil and gas leasing and to speed up the approval of drilling permits. To meet increased demand for natural gas, the task force said drilling on federal land will have to double by 2020.
Interior Secretary Gale Norton agreed in settling a lawsuit with the state of Utah last year to halt all reviews of public lands in the West for new wilderness protection and to withdraw that protected status from some 3 million acres in Utah.
That decision, which conservation groups have asked a federal appeals court to overturn, cleared the way for oil and gas leasing in millions more acres of potential wilderness in Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico.
In Colorado last month, some of the 70 parcels BLM offered for oil and gas leasing were in an area proposed for wilderness designation in legislation introduced by Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado. Several other parcels in the proposed wilderness area were withdrawn from the lease sale at the last minute. In neighboring Utah, the BLM has sold 26 oil and gas leases since November in areas eligible for wilderness designation.
"These are incredible, beautiful, and remote lands that have proven wilderness values," DeGette said when she introduced her wilderness bill. "However, they are now open to the full force of the draconian Bush energy policy, which proposes to open up thousands of our public lands to oil and gas development."
Since Cheney's task force handed down its recommendations, the BLM has completed a study of impediments to oil and gas exploration and development, speeded up approvals of drilling permits, and begun expedited updates of land use plans in 21 areas, almost half of which hold out the potential for more oil and gas development.
Tom Lonnie, the BLM's assistant director for minerals, realty, and resource protection, said the government can protect environmentally sensitive areas that are leased for oil and gas exploration by including restrictions in the lease agreement. But Lonnie said the administration has no control over when and where exploratory drilling occurs on federal leases.
"A lot of these areas where existing leases are being held onto may have low potential for production, based on industry analysis now," he said. "The industry is out there drilling the wells and doing the exploration, not us."
Even as more land is opened for leasing, it's questionable whether the industry has the resources to explore it. The Cheney task force concluded that very few new onshore oil drilling rigs have been built since the mid-1980s because of price volatility in the oil field supply and service sectors.
And the percentage of wells drilled in the United States since 2000 that are considered exploratory has declined slightly, when compared with the previous four years, according to data compiled by the Energy Information Administration.
A recent Wilderness Society study found that BLM has approved more than 25,000 drilling permits for public lands over the past decade, but the industry had drilled only about 19,000 new wells during that period.
"Even without additional leasing, if the current inventory of nonproducing leases were placed into production, the scale of drilling on public lands would increase dramatically, as would the degradation of lands where drilling is wholly inappropriate," the report concluded.
For oil companies, vast holdings of federal oil and gas leases, even if undeveloped, show up in their financial records as assets that help attract investors.
"Absolutely," said Mark Burford, director of investor relations for Tom Brown Inc., a Denver-based independent oil company. Tom Brown has more than 850,000 acres of federal land under lease, but just 22 percent is listed as producing, according to BLM records.
"In our investor presentations, we talk about the very large inventory of drilling locations on our acres that are prospective, and a lot of that would still be undeveloped," Burford said. "But based on our knowledge of the producing areas and the formations, that acreage is very prospective and very likely to work out as far as becoming producing."
Tom Brown is one of a half-dozen large oil companies that in recent years have exceeded the federal limit on the number of leased acres they can control in any one state. BLM officials acknowledged that they have granted repeated extensions for the companies to comply with the law, instead of exercising their legal right to cancel leases of companies in violation of the law.
Those six companies ? Tom Brown, Encana Oil and Gas, Anadarko, BP Amoco, Devon Energy, and Marathon Oil ? together controlled 3.9 million acres of federal oil and gas leases in March, according to BLM records. Just 1.2 million acres, or 30.8 percent of the total, is actually producing oil and gas.
Source: Associated Press
Senor this has been on going for over three years. The questioned asked here never gets answered. Why with over 40 million acres already approved in lower 48 states. Do they always get stuck on we need more and Alaska. Lets get going with what we have. Should keep them busy for about 15 years. It's never enough. They will be back to California soon. Then when all those folks wake up along the cost. They can look out at al those neet oil rigs. We should do that coast line and Alaska as last reserves.
And we better start learning how to conserve. We as the consumer of these wonderful autos and trucks should be demanding better miles per gal. If we just keep buying what they make it will never change. I do hope all Americans understand what a average of just 3 miles per gal more means to the security of our Nation. I have to believe our industry can even top that. They once said a average of 15/16 miles per gal was just nuts. Now were at 19/20. 23/25 can be done to.
And we better start learning how to conserve. We as the consumer of these wonderful autos and trucks should be demanding better miles per gal. If we just keep buying what they make it will never change. I do hope all Americans understand what a average of just 3 miles per gal more means to the security of our Nation. I have to believe our industry can even top that. They once said a average of 15/16 miles per gal was just nuts. Now were at 19/20. 23/25 can be done to.
