Why Don't We Drill in the U.S. for Oil?

[Modbert]

How long would it take for them to be depleted?

An article from 2004:

Study: ANWR oil would have little impact - U.S. news - Environment - msnbc.com

WASHINGTON — Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

Remember, we use 6.8 billion barrels a year now. 876,000 barrels a day is 319 million a year. It would peak at 319 million a year by 2025.

And the kicker:

But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.

A decrease of less than 5%.

People (not saying you) who think the solution to our energy problems lie in the fields of Alaska are the same people who chase the end of a rainbow to find a Leprechaun pot of gold.

 

[westwall]

We want to get off of foreign oil, correct? Then why don't we drill here for it? I mean, within the U.S. (on land)?

We do. However, much like a drug addict, the U.S needs more smack to get their fix.

US consumption of gasoline has actually been dropping since 2007.

 

[Cuyo]

We want to get off of foreign oil, correct? Then why don't we drill here for it? I mean, within the U.S. (on land)?

Because we're wicked smaht. When the rest of the world runs out first, we'll be the only ones who have it.

 

[uscitizen]

We want to get off of foreign oil, correct? Then why don't we drill here for it? I mean, within the U.S. (on land)?

We do every day. but for some strange reason it is not emphasized by the media.

I have a contract out to drill a well on my land.
If they hit gas I get free gas for my property if oil I get a royalty for every barrel produced.

 

[Trajan]

It's the same with Alaskan oil, Zoom-boing. There are technological challenges to bringing this oil to the surface, and they drive up the costs. So far, the oil companies have not found all such reserves economically viable.

But even if all oil fields in the US were under production, it would not eliminate our dependence on foreign oil....and it would drive up our costs, as consumers, quite a bit.

humm not from what I understand; we could put down and extract a hundred prudhomme bays and make a go of it. Delivery from large new sources there would require forward cost, maybe another pipeline etc...but in the end, we'd realize value.

 

[Big Fitz]

We want to get off of foreign oil, correct? Then why don't we drill here for it? I mean, within the U.S. (on land)?

Ecofascists and libtards are afraid America would become prosperous, self sufficient and debunk their crazy faith.

 

[Big Fitz]

The reason that we don't Drill is because we are trying to ban co2 from going to the Atmosphere. That is what Obama is doing.

Yes, we are trying to do the impossible for no good reason.

 

[Trajan]

How long would it take for them to be depleted?

View attachment 12617

An article from 2004:

Study: ANWR oil would have little impact - U.S. news - Environment - msnbc.com

WASHINGTON — Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

Remember, we use 6.8 billion barrels a year now. 876,000 barrels a day is 319 million a year. It would peak at 319 million a year by 2025.

And the kicker:

But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.

A decrease of less than 5%.

People (not saying you) who think the solution to our energy problems lie in the fields of Alaska are the same people who chase the end of a rainbow to find a Leprechaun pot of gold.

and we all know that this is done incrementally, 800k barrels there, 500k here, 250 there, pretty soon you're talking real oil...

frankly I say leave it at present production as to targets and planned lease approvals etc. we go on a crash prgm. and build say, 200 nuclear power plants....

 

[uscitizen]

How long would it take for them to be depleted?

View attachment 12617

An article from 2004:

Study: ANWR oil would have little impact - U.S. news - Environment - msnbc.com



Remember, we use 6.8 billion barrels a year now. 876,000 barrels a day is 319 million a year. It would peak at 319 million a year by 2025.

And the kicker:

But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.

A decrease of less than 5%.

People (not saying you) who think the solution to our energy problems lie in the fields of Alaska are the same people who chase the end of a rainbow to find a Leprechaun pot of gold.

and we all know that this is done incrementally, 800k barrels there, 500k here, 250 there, pretty soon you're talking real oil...

frankly I say leave it at present production as to targets and planned lease approvals etc. we go on a crash prgm. and build say, 200 nuclear power plants....

and us still without a taxpayer funded nuclear waste disposal site?

 

[Trajan]

View attachment 12617

An article from 2004:

Study: ANWR oil would have little impact - U.S. news - Environment - msnbc.com



Remember, we use 6.8 billion barrels a year now. 876,000 barrels a day is 319 million a year. It would peak at 319 million a year by 2025.

And the kicker:



A decrease of less than 5%.

People (not saying you) who think the solution to our energy problems lie in the fields of Alaska are the same people who chase the end of a rainbow to find a Leprechaun pot of gold.

and we all know that this is done incrementally, 800k barrels there, 500k here, 250 there, pretty soon you're talking real oil...

frankly I say leave it at present production as to targets and planned lease approvals etc. we go on a crash prgm. and build say, 200 nuclear power plants....

and us still without a taxpayer funded nuclear waste disposal site?

good point, another namby issue. back to self starvation then...

 

[Zoom-boing]

View attachment 12617

An article from 2004:

Study: ANWR oil would have little impact - U.S. news - Environment - msnbc.com



Remember, we use 6.8 billion barrels a year now. 876,000 barrels a day is 319 million a year. It would peak at 319 million a year by 2025.

And the kicker:



A decrease of less than 5%.

People (not saying you) who think the solution to our energy problems lie in the fields of Alaska are the same people who chase the end of a rainbow to find a Leprechaun pot of gold.

and we all know that this is done incrementally, 800k barrels there, 500k here, 250 there, pretty soon you're talking real oil...

frankly I say leave it at present production as to targets and planned lease approvals etc. we go on a crash prgm. and build say, 200 nuclear power plants....

and us still without a taxpayer funded nuclear waste disposal site?

What about recycling the spent fuel rods, ala France?

 

[Cuyo]

How long would it take for them to be depleted?

View attachment 12617

An article from 2004:

Study: ANWR oil would have little impact - U.S. news - Environment - msnbc.com



Remember, we use 6.8 billion barrels a year now. 876,000 barrels a day is 319 million a year. It would peak at 319 million a year by 2025.

And the kicker:

But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.

A decrease of less than 5%.

People (not saying you) who think the solution to our energy problems lie in the fields of Alaska are the same people who chase the end of a rainbow to find a Leprechaun pot of gold.

and we all know that this is done incrementally, 800k barrels there, 500k here, 250 there, pretty soon you're talking real oil...

frankly I say leave it at present production as to targets and planned lease approvals etc. we go on a crash prgm. and build say, 200 nuclear power plants....

Nuclear fission is not likely the answer. It's very expensive to build, even compared to other "Alternatives," and no state in the union wants the toxic waste.

IMO, there should be a fever, a dedication, a Manhattan project-style mad rush to build functioning fusion plants. It's closer than you might have known... But the timeline is sooooo slow at current progress...

ITER - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But a 30-year timeline? Wtf, build that shit in like 10. The cost of the entire project is only about $20B. How much did the Pentagon spend this month?

 

[Old Rocks]

Look at the two graphs below. The first, the gap between the size of discoveries, and the production.
The second, the production of the US.

File:GrowingGap.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:US Oil Production and Imports 1920 to 2005.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

There are new nuclear technologies that even burn the by products for fuel. However, they are not developed yet, and no one has yet found a way to bring down the cost of building and operating the nuclear plants. I believe we will use nuclear as a base, in conjunction with geothermal and hydro, will form the base, with alternatives being the primary source.

 

[Revere]

The enviro whackos are about de-industrialization. The superpowers and those who want to be superpowers are cutting oil exploration deals all over the world as fast as they can.

Meanwhile, we're being suckered into thinking dependence on foreign oil is bad.

 

[Old Rocks]

And Revere is very successfully all about idiocy.

 

[Trajan]

View attachment 12617

An article from 2004:

Study: ANWR oil would have little impact - U.S. news - Environment - msnbc.com



Remember, we use 6.8 billion barrels a year now. 876,000 barrels a day is 319 million a year. It would peak at 319 million a year by 2025.

And the kicker:



A decrease of less than 5%.

People (not saying you) who think the solution to our energy problems lie in the fields of Alaska are the same people who chase the end of a rainbow to find a Leprechaun pot of gold.

and we all know that this is done incrementally, 800k barrels there, 500k here, 250 there, pretty soon you're talking real oil...

frankly I say leave it at present production as to targets and planned lease approvals etc. we go on a crash prgm. and build say, 200 nuclear power plants....

Nuclear fission is not likely the answer. It's very expensive to build, even compared to other "Alternatives," and no state in the union wants the toxic waste.

IMO, there should be a fever, a dedication, a Manhattan project-style mad rush to build functioning fusion plants. It's closer than you might have known... But the timeline is sooooo slow at current progress...

ITER - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But a 30-year timeline? Wtf, build that shit in like 10. The cost of the entire project is only about $20B. How much did the Pentagon spend this month?

sounds good to me, but the timeline has got to shrink ala the tech. being feasible for mass production. IF it is then hey I am in.

Now, there is a whole magilla as to the geo-political aspect as to the cost of a nuke power plant as we know them today, balanced against the money we send overseas to folks whom ( who?) use it to make mischief as well. At the end of the day, if we decided to open all avenues for fossil fuel production we could vastly reduce what we send offshore ala money and the political picture would change vastly as well.

Right now, we have a self imposed 'diet' imposed upon us. We are so worried about the environment while china and India, Brazil go merrily along their way meanwhile WE are the Saudi Arabia of coal and have VAST deposits of natural gas to boot.

IF the pols really want to change behavior they could do what they did in Europe, raise the tax forcing us to restrict our usage but they are cowards, they won't, because it won't fly, so we stumble around somewhere in between....we don't have a rational energy policy for several reasons that bing one of the biggest.

 

[Modbert]

US consumption of gasoline has actually been dropping since 2007.

Link? It's not that I don't believe you but I like to see what context that's in.

 

[Modbert]

Ecofascists and libtards are afraid America would become prosperous, self sufficient and debunk their crazy faith.

And this thread was going along so well.

 

[Modbert]

Personally, I believe the future for the time being will be in various alternative energies. I see electric making strides when it comes to automobiles and a push for safe Nuclear energy in the long run for homes and other areas. Especially if France continues to have such great results with their program.