Printable View
First off, where did you ever see that I said I don't support Bush? I am behind him in the majority of the situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by jitBob
As far as the national reserve, I don't doubt that some has been withdrawn in the past, but I would like to know when and for how long. Wouldn't know of a site would ya?
That doesn't relate to what I posted but it is a good question(or at least the first one). the rest about Kerry I will leave to another thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
The part about squandering our national reserve is not what anyone is saying. we have, I believe 700 million barrels in reserve? There have been calls to temporarily release some. About a million barrels a day is the most common one. Since we import 12 million barrels a day the 700 million is a 58 day emergency supply. Since in an emergency we could be expected to cut our useage at least 10 percent, some say 30 percent, lets use 20 percent. So our emergency supply is good for about 70 days.
If we release 60 million barrels, at 1 million per day thats 60 days. Which would cut our reserve from 70 days to 63 days.
The purpose of the release is to moderate the market and end the wild speculation. It is hoped that at that point the prices will drop. Then we start refilling the reserve. Since we would sell it off at a relatively high price we might even make a profit if we can buy it back at a lower price.
Now if Bush is planning to invade Iran, which you have to admit is at least possible than we shouldn't touch the reserve.
The Bush and Republican position has been that the reserve is not meant to be used to control prices. They believe in a the free market. Yet oil is not a free market. It is controlled by a cartel. Many people believe that a large enough reserve used as a price counterpoint could counteract the cartels power.
The only REAL answer to the oil problem is:
Find and produce more oil- Not likely
Get by on less oil by making oil using devices more efficient- A good short term solution.
Find alternative fuels- Doable. Just not under the free market. Since there is a cartel that can force alternative fuel suppliers into bankruptcy there needs to be some force (government) that can protect alternative fuel producers. I started this post with a proposition for one that is likely to work.
btw it turns out that alternative fuels are viable at 35.00 per barrel
Previous use of the Strategic Petroleum reserve.
A couple of instances are listed here.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2076042
I also remember Clinton releasing about 34 million barrels one year to contain the high cost of heating oil in the North East one winter.
And bear in mind the amounts released previously were about the same percentages of the total reserve as are being suggested now.
Well then...since the President is the one dealing with our current situation, and is more aware of all current and future commitments, shouldn't he be granted permission to run this country without Kerry constantly badgering him about "poor policy" that he perceives in the Bush administration? There are some things that Kerry isn’t going to be privy to, so to insist that the president do this or that his way, or produce an “adequate reason” why he hasn’t or wont isn’t good politics…
Strategic oil reserve drawdown here. It was even the other Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
I'm sorry, but, did you just say Bush is dealing with our current situation? And did you also just say that Bush is aware???Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
Who do you think you are, Chris Rock?Quote:
Originally Posted by jitBob
https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/02/1.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
Sorry about the delay in my respose techs. It's a long way from where I work to where I live, over 600 miles, and it was a bear of a travel day from the NW Arctic to home in Eagle River (I did take the time to welcome a newbie though :p ).Quote:
Originally Posted by techs
To start with my post wasn't my reasoning, but is actually my experience of what is going on in the mineral industry for the last 23 years (well except for the last one which was semi TIC - d@mn bean counters). The items I mentioned in my missive are but a few points. As to your erroneous comment in re to exploration in my budget for this year and next year is $10 million for exploration of Coal Bed Methane deposits on the Western Slope of the Brooks Range + another $3.2 million for other mineral exploration projects in the NW Arctic Borough. Our worldwide exploration budget is approximately 10% of our total operating budget. We are just one relatively small (on the Global scale) Canadian company. The really big boyz (BP, Phillips-Conoco, Exxon, Phelps-Dodge, Groupo Mexico, BHP-Billiton, Anglo-American, etc.) are spending billions in Alaska, Eastern Siberia (the same geological formations that formed the Prudhoe Deposits hold true across the Chukchi Sea - this is also true for other minerals as well-especially Titanium and Palladium), Indonesia, South America (Chile & Peru mainly) and yes even the Lower 48 of the US (mostly the SW). You won't find these stats or information in a Google search and unless you have access to someone like PricewaterhouseCoopers or have some insded info from the LME or the Merch you won't find it. We in the mineral industry are very protective of our data :D .
Now as to your question concerning $50 a barrel cap, which is what it essentially is, my answer would be no. Not in our "free market" economy it would not work without gov't intervention and I for one do not want that (it's just the Libertarian in me). The only place a cap has worked is in the NFL. :p
Alternative fuels are a great idea, and despite what ya might think we are spending $$$ in R&D. There has been some positive results in the Sonoran Desert of AZ on solar power (the efficiency %'s gains are encouraging). Another "alternative" is being used by Vericor and Environment & Power Systems in using volatiles & organics from Pollution Control Equipment for thermal destruction in the generation of electricity using 25 Megawatt turbines. As a quote unquote "alternative" it doesn't quite meet the definition of an alternative fuel, but it is a "green" alternative to power production by capturing pollutants from pollution control equipment which will reduce help reduce dioxin, NOx, COx and volatile emissions. Every little bit does help. There are other alternatives and some sound like something from Larry Niven, but as our technology has progressed they don't sound as far fetched now. I for one think geothermic & possibly core tap technology is a very doable thing (as shown in Iceland and could be put to major use here in AK) - getting past that diamond drill bit technology has been a hoser though ;) .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya_know
I wish more peope understood that.
Higher prices will lead to alternatives, conservation, etc. Remember the effect of the oil embargo of the 1970's? In my opinion, the long term effect of higher oil prices will be positive.
Gas dropped 3 cents a gallon across the board here overnight.
Just hit 2.08 here. The first time it went over 2.00. Last week it was 1.99.
If Bush really wanted to help consumers and not the oil companies he could lower prices almost immediately without endangering the reserve.
The recent increase in oil output enacted by Saudi Arabia means the Saudi oil will take 2 months to reach the U.S. If an equivalent amount of oil being shipped by Saudis were released by National Reserve it would reach the market in days.
Don't hold your breath though. George may just need a couple of hundred million more for the campaign when he declines public financing. I am sure the oil companies will oblige.
$1.89 for 87 unleaded here in Eagle River. I forgot to ask my folks this afternoon what their stations are charging in SW Virginia. I'll call in the morning and find out. Oh out in the Alaskan Bush prices per gallon have hit $5 a gallon for 87. :eek:
Major Kong I read your post. I am still digesting it. It would help ime f you knew the answers to these two multipart questions:
First: In regards to your exploration budget. Will you be increasing your spending this year on exploration due to greater revenues and profits? or would you wait til next year when you determined your total yearly revenue? And is your exploration budget a straight percentage of revenue or do you explore based the projected price of oil versus the projected cost of extraction?
Second: From what I have read oil fields have some computed rate of extraction versus total extraction. In other words if you pump more quickly a field might produce less over the course of its lifetime? I understand it is a range and is also not precise? So during times like these of really high oil prices do you pump more, sacrificing total output to get more to sell at the current high rate?
thanks.
Hi there,
I think oil prices at it's high is a good thing. It shows us how dependant we are when it comes to this source of energy. I just hope that idiot Bush (excuse me, that's how I think of him) don't go dig for oil in Alaska and pratically destory everything there, while he can actually just increase the mimimun level of evergy effiency in cars more then the current standard, especailly in SUVs or high demanding vericles. It will not only save tons of oil every day, but save the enviroment as well. :) I'm sure they are many ways to cut back your oil spending.
Don't forget were your oil is coming from when you fill up.
Ju Leon...
it does give auto companies an incentive to improve efficiency and try alternative energy sources
Crap!!!! :mad: I'm sorry techs I wrote a nice missive in re to your questions walked away from the PC for 5 minutes and IE6 locked up! Back to Opera 7.50.
Well I lost my train of though so I will make my answers KISS.
#1 Our exploration plan for 2004 was made in 2001 as part of a 10 year plan. The only thing that had to be tweaked was our "annual" budget which we still underestimated. I'm actually on the mineral extraction and Natural Gas side of my company and revenue doesn't actually come to play per se. The only thing the bottom line comes into play is in re to the amount we spend. In some years our biggest exploration expenditures have been when we are seriously in the red.
#2 Ah yes the practice is sometimes referred to as "High Grading". Yes companies do ramp it up in times when a market goes from bear to bull. It has been my experience over the last 23 years that this practice will pay off handsomely for a year or two, but it does catch up in around 5 years. The company I work for does not high grade, but I'd be a complete ostrich to say it doesn't happen. It's not like it's an On & Off switch that can be thrown at will, but usually given a 60-90 day window and a company can step it up if it has the resources.
I ceratinly hope this helps. Also please keep in mind that the accounting practices of the mineral extraction industry (mining, oil, smelting & refining) is ummm...unique to say the least. What might be worth $2B in 2004 may be only worth $900M in 2006. Weird just plain weird, but so goes the industry I chose to go in to back in '80.
Now to Ju Leon's ummmm interesting comment. We are already on the North Slope of the Brooks Range and the Beaufort Sea. Been there for many years now. Guess what? The caribou are flourishing (as I can attest to the 350,000 that went through the tundra where I work back in November) and the 'skeeter's are as big as ever. I find it interesting that just on the other side of the Caribou herd in the ANWR that Canada is pouring mega $$$$$$$$$$ into the development of it's side oil fields in the Yukon. Hmm do ewe want to venture a guess who are some of the biggest lobbiest against the US opening up ANWR? Go on take a stab at it ewe can do it. I'll give ya a hint their flag has a Maple Leaf on it. :p
That's just utter bull$hit.Quote:
Originally Posted by techs
Remeber the "heating oil crisis" that happened during the Klinton administration? Gore and company "graciously" opened the strategic reserves then, and what happened to the prices?
Absolutely nothing.
You know that the rest of the world is feeling this just as bad, and many are feeling it much worse than we are. You seem to think, and respond so eloquently stating that Bush is completely at fault for the oil prices being so high.Quote:
Originally Posted by techs
Techs, let me spell this out for you to understand one very important point:
This is not just a national policy problem, it's an International crisis!!!
By releasing the national reserve, we have absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that this will effect prices in the long run for us or any of the countries out there feeling the squeeze…there may be a slight flux here, but once we close the reserve the prices will bounce right back…and will probably continue to go up, and what about taxes to pay for replenishing the reserve? There is a hidden cost to this as well.
You have all the answers, and so many good questions :rolleyes:, solve this global problem for us and I will be most obliged…
And if you can't solve it, then you need to take back everything bad you've said about Bush and these Oil issues... :thumbs: