US Abundance of Gas and Oil

[Faithfulee]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121322599645166029.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

The US Congress is the greatest handicap to the economy of the US since Smoot Hawley.

A prior estimate of the quantity of domestic oil held that there was enough for 140 years.  Today, with new technologies and $130 Barrel oil, the estimate may be low.

there's no doubt the U.S. has vast undeveloped fossil-fuel deposits. A tiny corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil and would be the largest producing oil field in the Northern Hemisphere. Yet the Senate blocked that development as recently as last month. The Outer Continental Shelf is estimated to contain some 86 billion barrels of oil, plus 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yet of the shelf's 1.76 billion acres, 85% is off-limits and 97% is undeveloped.
Engineers recently perfected refining solid shale rock into diesel or gas, which may amount to the largest oil supply in the world – perhaps as much as 1.8 trillion barrels in the American West. That's enough to meet current U.S. oil demand for more than two centuries. Yet as late as 2007, Democrats attached a rider to the energy bill that prohibits leasing the federal interior lands that contain at least 80% of America's oil shale. The key vote was cast by liberal Senator Ken Salazar from Colorado, of all places

The reason we are not tapping into these resources is the US Congress.  57% of Americans believe we should allow drilling and only 41% oppose according to a new Gallup Poll.
McCain has a far better approach to tapping this resource than Obama,  but even he panders to the idea of “limited supply”  when in fact we have abundance.

The only person to have a sensible approach is Newt Gingrich.  He has 500,000 signatures on a drill here, drill now, pay less  petition. 
Obama’a idea of energy development is to tax oil companies.

[Acumen]

And we have a link to his site on the front page of the website.   

[Acumen]

Obama’a idea of energy development is to tax oil companies.

Right, and this is dumb for so many different reasons.

[Hatman]

Lee-
I'm with you on this; it appears that many are not.  Here's the gist of what I posted on a similar b-net thread:


http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2007/12/02/state/hjjcihjhjighgf.txt

An excerpt:

Oil discovery turns to fairy tale for one man By Jennifer McKee, of The Standard State Bureau - 12/02/2007

HELENA — The low point came when the things got so tight that Billings petroleum geologist Richard Findley flirted with the idea of taking a second job as a restaurant cook. He was working out of his basement, looking for oil in an eastern Montana field almost nobody else wanted. Then, in 1996, he and his partner accidentally stumbled across a porous layer of dolomite 9,000 feet below ground, just a little west and north of Sidney.

That serendipity turned out to be the largest on-shore oil discovery in the continental United States in better than 20 years. Today, the oil field Findley found — and the technology he helped develop to extract the oil — has made millionaires out of ordinary Montanans, has swollen state coffers and ushered in a new philosophy of oil prospecting worldwide.

‘‘It’s just been a fairy tale for a guy like me,’’ Findley said.

About 15.7 million barrels of oil were pumped out of Montana in 2000. Five years later, production had more than doubled to almost 32.8 million barrels. The difference, said Tom Richmond, administrator of the State Board of Oil and Gas, is Elm Coulee, the field Findley found.

Elm Coulee has produced more oil in 2005 than the entire state combined produced just six years earlier. Elm Coulee has helped put Montana back on the map of oil production, said Dave Galt, head of the Montana Petroleum Association The story behind the discovery, Findley said, is being in the ‘‘right spot for the wrong reasons.’’ But it’s also the story of a man who, after years of struggle, found that a field most people thought was tapped out was, in fact, ripe for further tapping.

Another article detailing the history of oil field suppression:
Peak Oilhttp://www.peakoil.com/printout717.html
An excerpt:

William Brown, Director of Technological Studies at the Hudson Institute, said: "The President (Carter) said there is no chance of us becoming independent in our oil supplies. That is just wrong. We have at least 100 years of petroleum resources in this country." In 1976, proven resources were set at 37 billion barrels and the estimated recoverable resources were set at 150 billion barrels. This is about a 50-year supply at current usage levels. The American Petroleum Institute said in their 1977 Annual report, that recoverable crude was set at 30.9 billion barrels, and with today's technology, the amount of recoverable crude was 303.5 billion barrels, which is about an 80-year supply. The 1968 U.S. Geological Survey reported that the crude oil potential of the Atlantic Ocean continental shelf area is 224 billion barrels, the Gulf of Mexico has 575 billion barrels, the Pacific Coast has 275 billion barrels, and Alaska has 502 billion barrels, which is a grand total of 1,576 billion barrels. Only about 2% of these areas have been leased, which at the time of the report, had yielded 615 million barrels of oil, and 3.8 TCF (trillion cubic feet) of natural gas yearly.

The Wall Street Journal said that we possessed "1001 years of natural gas."

And finally, I found a number of sources indicating that the Bakken Oil can be recovered for $20-40FRN's/barrel.

Here's one. http://www.grandinite.com/2008/03/09/why-albertas-oil-could-be-less-relevant-in-one-month/
Here's another.http://www.huliq.com/55771/bakken-oil-formation-field-holds-massive-oil-reserves
Here's the google-resultshttp://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bakken+Oil%22+%2440&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org

And here's one more curious 1999 WSJ article indicating that at least SOME oil fields are refilling on their own:

WSJhttp://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm

With goodwill to all the People-

Hatman

[Faithfulee]

Thank you Acumen and Hatman.

The abundance is obvious, but the political reality is the the Dims (and some Repubs) want to use he pain that consumers are facing to develop more socialism and control of the oil markets.

The solution obviously is "Drill here, Drill Now, Pay less"

Drill Here- reduces the need for importing, provides jobs for Americans, adds to the Domestic National Product, and dozens of other advantages.

Drill Now - Why wait?? We have the technology to overcome the environmental issues.  The Dim argument that we wont get results is childish.  Only a politician would think that way.

Pay Less - The minute that we make a serious commitment to drill for our own gas and Oil the futures markets will reflect this added future supply and gas prices will come down.

I think that it is interesting that none on the liberals and usual dissenters are able to discuss this.  Let us hope that the Republicans get the "lead out" and use this issue to propel a landslide Republican victory in November. 

[Faithfulee]

Another well balanced article on oil


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121358521129676481.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news

A recent Gallup poll shows 57% of Americans support opening up new territories to drilling, while a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll conducted this month shows 59% of Americans saying Congress should take the lead on responding to high gas prices.

[WorldWarrior]

When would those first barrels of oil hit the US gas pumps--exactly?

[Thorolf]

When would those first barrels of oil hit the US gas pumps--exactly?

Nobody can say -- exactly. But that is much less important than the impact of simply being ALLOWED to drill more and undertake more exploration would have almost immediately on futures... they certainly wouldn't spike if the single biggest purchaser of oil suddenly was on an affirmative path to stop buying foreign oil altogether...

[Faithfulee]

When would those first barrels of oil hit the US gas pumps--exactly?

Nobody can say -- exactly. But that is much less important than the impact of simply being ALLOWED to drill more and undertake more exploration would have almost immediately on futures... they certainly wouldn't spike if the single biggest purchaser of oil suddenly was on an affirmative path to stop buying foreign oil altogether...

It will come sooner than if we don't drill.  And a reminder, it was Clinton in 1994 that Vetoed the legislation to drill in ANWR.  Had he acted responsibly (a great challange for him)  oil would be flowing from ANWR today.

[Faithfulee]

In fairness, and we all know that Faithfulee is fair, I was reminded today the it was an executive order the none other than President G H W Bush who signed an executive order limiting off shore drilling during his administration.

But then there was not the technology to drill at those depths. 

We can now vote for CHANGE

Florida Charlie Crist supports lifting the federal Ban on Offshore drilling.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121372245926581441.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

President Bush, Florida's governor and Republican presidential candidate John McCain are calling to lift a federal ban on offshore oil drilling, showing how voter anger over soaring gasoline prices is pushing politicians to rethink U.S. energy policy.

Surging oil prices, coinciding with an economic slump and November's looming U.S. elections, are forcing a renewed conflict between environmental concerns over possible oil spills and a drive to funnel more oil toward the market. Meanwhile, Congress also is debating whether to wade into energy markets by imposing more controls on speculative trading of oil and slapping a windfall profits tax on oil companies to pay for alternative energy development.

The White House said that the president will call on Congress to allow "environmentally friendly offshore oil drilling." That came hours after Florida Gov. Charlie Crist reversed his longstanding opposition to drilling off the shores of his state, which in turn came after Sen. McCain -- widely seen as considering Gov. Crist as a potential vice-presidential candidate -- issued his call.

This will make an excellent issue for the November election.

[Hatman]

Lee-
I gotta say that I think Obama has missed the boat on this issue; he could've turned it into a major plus, instead of going for the environmentalist bs by simply saying "Ok, I'm in favor of allowing offshore oil drilling, but only if the majority of the tax funds that arise from the selling of the oil go to the State whose shores are being drilled off of, and there will be SEVERE penalties for any oil spill over, say, 100 barrels."

A tax plan like this would benefit everyone---the States, by increasing their revenues without having to increase taxes on the People---the Fed, by increasing THEIR revenues from the Fed taxes---and the oil companies themselves, who can tap, sell, and EXPORT in at least an ATTEMPT to turn America into a PRODUCING country again, instead of a "service" economy, a recipe for disastrous 3rd world status.

Taxing the oil companies punitively is definitely NOT the answer; closing the unregulated trading in oil FUTURES, IS.  This could be done by Bush NOW, TODAY, by the simple issuance of an Executive order to the CFTC to return to their pre-Jan 2006 mandate, but I strongly suspect we ain't gonna see one of those anytime soon; Bush's oil-co. and Wall Street buds have their hooks in too deep.

With goodwill to all the People-

Hatman

[Faithfulee]

We are together on this on  Hatman Buddy

Obama  bombed out and will lose the election on his one.

Please note that after Katrina  The US did authorize drilling offshore of the state.  I don't know if there were penalties, but I do know that the state reaped tax and other benefits from the deal.  Just like what President Proposes.

The other aspect is that the dims are still whining, no immediate effect, and resourses are puny.
We should rub their noses in that one.  As if taxing oilcompanies will result in lower prices

[TENAC]

A tax plan like this would benefit everyone---the States, by increasing their revenues without having to increase taxes on the People---the Fed, by increasing THEIR revenues from the Fed taxes---and the oil companies themselves, who can tap, sell, and EXPORT in at least an ATTEMPT to turn America into a PRODUCING country again, instead of a "service" economy, a recipe for disastrous 3rd world status.

Hat,

Would the states be taxed on this revenue? 

This would be a true windfall profit!!!

Also, if this is going to be a state issue, and the states maintain revenues from this oil, would they not be responsible to maintain it and also for for any spillage, holding individual oil companies accountable?

[Adrian1197]

Does anyone know the world's abundance of gas and oil? Approximately.

The only problem I have with "drill now" is: what happens when we run out all together? Doesn't anyone think it's about time to start looking for a contingency plan?

[Acumen]

Does anyone know the world's abundance of gas and oil? Approximately.

The only problem I have with "drill now" is: what happens when we run out all together? Doesn't anyone think it's about time to start looking for a contingency plan?

That's like the government banning home building because of speculation that we will eventually run out of trees. 

[Faithfulee]

Does anyone know the world's abundance of gas and oil? Approximately.

The only problem I have with "drill now" is: what happens when we run out all together? Doesn't anyone think it's about time to start looking for a contingency plan?

My information is that there is enough for 140 Years.  And we really don't know how much oil and gas is available.

I am surprised at the libs who have no sense of the vast abundance of natural resources on this earth.

And of course,  It cost the Gov nothing to drill for this oil, as a matter of fact it should greatly increase immeditae term income from leasing bids,  and much more when oil is found. 

Lastly,  what kind of a closed mind would think that drilling here and drilling now would limit our ability to find different and more efficient sources of energy

[Thorolf]

Does anyone know the world's abundance of gas and oil? Approximately.

The only problem I have with "drill now" is: what happens when we run out all together? Doesn't anyone think it's about time to start looking for a contingency plan?

Is there some reason you think we AREN'T, and haven't been, looking for contingency plans?

[Thorolf]

So I was thinking this evening as my wife and I watered our garden... there is a global food shortage, right? Some countries have serious issues with starvation either currently plaguing them, or threatening to...

As I pondered these things, I also considered my own garden, which I expect to produce plentiful tomatoes, corn, various gourds, beans, peas, jalapeno peppers, etc, etc... in a few months.

How else to answer the world food shortage than to encourage people to plant more foodcrops in arable land? Of course, such a tactic can help us save a little on the expense of rising food costs, as well.

But it's not immediate... it's not even quick. It can take several months to realize the potential of the seeds that were planted - and some will never grow at all. Plus, you have the problems of various animals, insects, and whatnot who are negatively impacting your garden's productivity.

If we used the Democrats' logic, we might as well never plant any more crops. Why not? Because we won't see any results for months, maybe longer, and the problem of food shortages and high prices is right NOW.

If we delay, or determine to never bother planting crops, we will not only never meet the demand and address the emergency of food shortages, but we will ultimately just end up making things worse.

[TENAC]

So I was thinking this evening as my wife and I watered our garden... there is a global food shortage, right? Some countries have serious issues with starvation either currently plaguing them, or threatening to...

As I pondered these things, I also considered my own garden, which I expect to produce plentiful tomatoes, corn, various gourds, beans, peas, jalapeno peppers, etc, etc... in a few months.

How else to answer the world food shortage than to encourage people to plant more foodcrops in arable land? Of course, such a tactic can help us save a little on the expense of rising food costs, as well.

But it's not immediate... it's not even quick. It can take several months to realize the potential of the seeds that were planted - and some will never grow at all. Plus, you have the problems of various animals, insects, and whatnot who are negatively impacting your garden's productivity.

If we used the Democrats' logic, we might as well never plant any more crops. Why not? Because we won't see any results for months, maybe longer, and the problem of food shortages and high prices is right NOW.

If we delay, or determine to never bother planting crops, we will not only never meet the demand and address the emergency of food shortages, but we will ultimately just end up making things worse.

Yeah....but you got a hose pipe........

[Faithfulee]

There are two things that the Dems can do to get an immediate effect

Price Controls

Rationing

Everything else will take time. 

What amazes me is that the gullable libs actually believe the Obamaline without any thought.

The also have convinced the people of the scarcity, rather than abundance.