It says 80% of Chevron's leases are actively worked. Does that mean successful oil production, exploration, setup, what? There is still 20% not being used. I'll go ahead and let the other 5 major oil companies get off and say they are using at least 80% of their leases as well. I've heard estimates that the oil companies have leases from 40 million acres to upward of 70 million. So, if all the major oil companies only "work" 80% of their current leases then that leaves 8 million acres, using the 40 million acre estimate, that is not being worked. About half the size of ANWR, another major potential exploration and production site. If you use a larger estimate, say 60 million acres, then that leaves 12 million acres to be "worked" by the companies. That's more than 60% of the ANWR's total size. I'd say those are pretty significant numbers.
Since it s coming out of the horse's mouth . . . a hourse that is making record profits .. . . . why is he more 'credible' than his opposition is it not in his best interested to get them to open up the new places? I mean . . .If i have 1 million dollars I might want to go looking for more . . rather than spend my own money in this case I know i got 20% left that can produce my oil . . .that is MINE . . . I might want to save it til times are REALLY TOUGH so i'll hold that . . and explore elsewhere Rocket River not saying he lying . . but I am kind of on the fence about it all
Tar balls too? Little rainbow swirls of floating oil skim? Unsightly oil rigs on the horizon? I know that technology has come a long way, but it only takes one major spill or accident... I remember the days when you could not go barefoot on the beach.
Well, someone did mention earlier that we could string up Christmas lights on 'em. That would be awesome.
Not sure I follow you here, are you saying that 15% of our ULSD has to be IMPORTED? You said exported...?? Anyway, my understanding on BMW diesels is that they would not export to the US because the diesel was not clean enough, so ULSD should allow more diesels to show up in the future.
Scarce or not, our main supply is foreign. If we can produce more of our own, AND keep it for our use, the initial barrel price shouldn't be so high. What happens from that point on.....
25% of the diesel currently produced in the US is Low Sulfur Diesel (not ULSD). Only 10% of the diesel sold to US consumers can be LSD. (Although the Federal Government can still use as much as they want.) So about 15% of the diesel produced in the US is unavailable to US Consumers. I don't know if imports have made it up or not, but our ULSD standards are the most strict in the world, so it has to be made specifically for the US market.
link Industry says new tests needed to facilitate debate Offshore oil and gas projections based on decades-old data By BRETT CLANTON Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle ENERGY OFFSHORE Government estimates of recoverable oil and natural gas in the central and western Gulf of Mexico, and in areas now off-limits to drilling including most of the East and West coasts, parts of Alaska and the eastern Gulf of Mexico: • Total oil 85.9 billion barrels • Total gas 419.9 trillion cubic feet • Oil in off-limits areas 18 billion barrels • Gas in off-limits areas 76 trillion cubic feet Source: U.S. Minerals Management Service Check out the latest in energy news The debate over whether to lift a 27-year-old ban on offshore drilling in most U.S. waters raises a key question that some say hasn't been answered: How much oil and gas is really out there? Government estimates are based on data that in some cases haven't been updated in 40 years. Technology used to detect oil and gas resources in rockbeds below the sea floor has improved dramatically since then. That's why the oil and gas industry argues that the only way to have a fair discussion about opening all or part of the banned areas is to do new surveys, using the latest technology. "We would think policymakers would want to know what's out there," said Dan Naatz, vice president for natural resources at the Independent Petroleum Association of America, an industry trade group. "Right now, it's a complete black hole." Randall Luthi, director of the U.S. Minerals Management Service, an arm of the Interior Department charged with overseeing offshore drilling in federal waters, said the ban removes the incentive for companies to perform new seismic surveys. "Most seismic companies are more than willing to go look at areas, but frankly they want to be able to sell their data to someone," Luthi said. "And as long as those areas are covered by federal moratoria, there's really no market for it." Opponents of lifting the ban see new testing as the start of a slippery slope that would lead to drilling. And they say it's a waste of money at a time when the U.S. should be investing in ways to break its addiction to oil. What's more, they question whether it's even worth the effort, given government estimates that say oil companies already have access to nearly 80 percent of all recoverable oil in U.S. offshore regions. The figure comes from a 2006 government study that estimates banned areas contain 18 billion barrels of a total 85.9 billion barrels of oil in all federal waters. "We're only talking drops in the bucket here as to what they get from areas that are currently off limits," said Jim Presswood, energy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group in Washington. 18 billion barrels? The issue comes to the fore as record crude oil prices have Americans paying more than $4 a gallon for gasoline and as lawmakers and presidential candidates spar over the best ways to address the energy crisis. Last week, the House rejected a measure that would have tried to force oil and gas companies to drill on 68 million acres of federal land they have leased but have not begun to develop. House Democrats had argued that oil companies should use the acres they already control rather than trying to seek more leases in banned areas. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, also opposes lifting the offshore drilling ban, saying it would give neither short-term relief from gas prices nor lessen the nation's long-term reliance on oil imports. But this month, Sen.John McCain of Arizona, the likely Republican nominee, came out in support of lifting the ban, citing high energy prices. A recent Gallup Poll found that 57 percent of Americans would support drilling in offshore or wilderness areas that are now off-limits, while 41 percent oppose the idea. Yet some say the debate is largely academic without better understanding what lies beneath. Through a series of actions beginning in 1982, the federal government has banned offshore drilling along much of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, parts of Alaska and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Today, those regions are thought to contain about 18 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, said Luthi, of the Minerals Management Service. "The caveat on those numbers is that we really don't know," he said in an interview. "We're basing those estimates on numbers that are probably 25 or 30 years old." Dusting off old reports As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Minerals Management Service was required to conduct a "comprehensive inventory and analysis" of the estimated natural gas and oil resources on the Outer Continental Shelf — all the submerged lands in waters managed by the U.S. government — including areas under the ban. Several months later, the agency filed a report with its estimate but acknowledged it was "highly dependent on the current knowledge base, which has not been updated in 20 to 40 years for certain areas." "They basically had to go dust off old reports," said Naatz, who believes updated surveys would show greater potential in areas now off-limits. Advocates of lifting the ban point to the the Gulf of Mexico. Oil and gas production in the region has exceeded earlier estimates, largely because of knowledge gained through continued exploration and improved technology, said Naatz and others in the industry. Advances in seismic technology, which uses sound waves to collect data about underground rock formations, have been especially dramatic. A few decades ago, geologists depended on two-dimensional images to interpret the size, location and characteristics of oil and gas reservoirs. Today, computers and high-tech recording equipment allow scientists to analyze and interpret data using 3-D and even 4-D images that monitor changes in a producing reservoir over time. Several companies in Houston are on the leading edge of developing such technology. The advances "can provide significant insight over very old data and could be compared to something like looking at an antique black and white print instead of a high-resolution color photograph," said Timothy L. Wells, president for the Western Hemisphere at CGGVeritas, a French provider of seismic services to the oil and gas industry and with offices in Houston. Critics say tests disruptive Improved technology also has allowed oil companies to be more precise when drilling, reducing financial risk and their environmental footprint, said Thomas Scoulios, region manager for North America at WesternGeco, the seismic unit of oil field services giant Schlumberger. "When you don't know what you're looking at, you end up using a bigger hammer than you might need," he said. But environmental groups say seismic testing itself can be disruptive to marine wildlife. Beyond that, they say, it's a short-sighted answer to a long-term problem. "Instead of spending more money and time on more seismic testing and a desperate search for more oil, we should be investing in clean energy alternatives," said Kristina Johnson, a spokeswoman for the Sierra Club. The Energy Department estimates more access to federal waters would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. But Naatz, of the Independent Petroleum Association, said the country has to start somewhere. "The policy right now is simply to say no," he said, "and we think that's a mistake."
Whoop, there it is. Btw - I would be interested in one of the hydrogen conversion kits... but the solar system to charge it runs upwards of $100k, and a small wind turbine generator runs anywhere from $15k-$100k as well... So... ummm... yeah...
I've skimmed this thread and interesting discussion particular the motor technology stuff. I'm neutral on the subject of drilling off the coast as I think that technology has improved quite a bit in regards to safety and I figure if the Europeans are OK with drilling in the North Sea then it shouldn't be as big of an issue for us to drill of of our coast. That said drilling for oil off of the coast is like tossing a dime bag to a junkie when what we need to do is kick the addiction. My own personal belief is that major change isn't going to happen without some serious pain and that means very expensive oil. Just saying we're going to tap more oil as our stop gap measure to lower prices as we move to other energy sources just means that much longer we will delay in fully committing to moving off of oil. As a society our attention span is short and if gas prices start coming down again the conservation kick we are on now along with the seeming urgency we have in alternative energy sources will drop like it did in the 80's. Eventually we just repeat the cycle and in 10 or 20 years we will be facing another energy crisis and people will be saying "why O why didn't we keep up with the focus we had before. Paying $4 a gallon is painful and it hurts many but given our history of the last 40 years a sustained period of high gas prices might be the only thing that final gets us seriously off of oil.
Regarding why technologies like mini-turbines and other engine technologies haven't gain widespread acceptance is that in many ways the initial idea is relatively easy but the marketing of it and the change in infrastructure is the hard part. In my own field there are tons of architects, builders and engineers who have thought of ways to build houses cheaper and more energy and resource efficient yet we are still primarily building houses using stick framing. A technology that dates back to the 19th C. and is very inefficient. The problem is that the whole building industry is geared to that, consider why Home Depot carries 2" x 4" on the shelf but not composite wall panels, along with how architects and builders are trained, how our building codes are written and even how construction is financed. Its getting over the hurdle of that built-in institutional inertia which has kept the way we building houses from radically changing and not so much the development of new technology.
This also applies to the oil industry. its great to explore new technology, its a pain to make the shift, especially when you have the infrastructure in place. its a pardigm shift. its not a conspiracy. just think if we all of a sudden found a a new way to transmit electricity that was more efficient than power lines. think of taking down all the power lines and replacing them with the new system. it would be an enourmous undertaking. that's why i don't have a problem with more drilling offshore. these changes happen gradually. also, i believe the government has to be on the forefront of trying to bring in new technology because the undertaking is so large
