quote:

ORIGINAL: Sophie11

I just don't think that we should bankrupt ourselves in the process of trying to get cheaper energy. That does not help. As far as the oil subsidies go, IF there is someone who will truly try do develop another source of energy, then fine give them the subsidies. But I guarantee the government is not the one to look to in this issue, efficient isn't even in their vocabulary. Anyway, oil may be a finite source but in the meantime there ARE still many areas where it is known or suspected to be that have not even been tapped into yet. I don't think oil is going to be running out anytime in the next 20 or 30 years minimum so that does give time to develop other energy sources and get them on the market without ruining the economy in the process.

quote:

The best news about wind is that once we build the turbine, we never have to find a new field again.

quote:

but I don't think we plan on discovering anything that could replace Ghawar in Saudi Arabia or even Cantarell in Mexico

quote:

ORIGINAL: colliefan

Again, how is wind going to power a motor vehicle. How is wind going to pave roads? How are we going to move from an oil-based market to a green market w/o going into a severe recession or depsression? Drill here, Drill now, Save Less.

quote:

ORIGINAL: colliefan
Read the articles The finds in ND and MT could be as large as Saudi. The greenies want NO drilling at all. We need oil run the country.
Yes, there needs to be research into alternatives but not at the economic cost that is currently taking place.

quote:


Again, how is wind going to power a motor vehicle. How is wind going to pave roads?

quote:

How are we going to move from an oil-based market to a green market w/o going into a severe recession or depsression?

quote:

FYI, ANWR would provide 500kbpd at the very most.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HighPlainsDrifter

Insanity...the Chinese are drilling right now in these waters. This is almost to the point of being self-sabotage by domestic enemies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: colliefan
Read the articles The finds in ND and MT could be as large as Saudi. The greenies want NO drilling at all. We need oil run the country.
Yes, there needs to be research into alternatives but not at the economic cost that is currently taking place.

Last I checked, they were about half the size of Prudhoe Bay. And that's great- we should drill it- but it doesn't reduce the need to switch to new forms of energy. It just buys us maybe an extra nine months or so.

quote:

Oh, yes the evil drug companies along with the evil big retail, but nothing is evil about big government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
From the article on the ND fields
"The U.S. Geological Survey's Leigh Price, a Denver geochemist who died in 2000, estimated that the Bakken might hold 413 billion barrels. If so, it would dwarf Saudi Arabia's Ghawar, the world's biggest field, which has produced about 55 billion barrels.
"

413 billion barrels is alot more than 9 months worth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
From the article on the ND fields
"The U.S. Geological Survey's Leigh Price, a Denver geochemist who died in 2000, estimated that the Bakken might hold 413 billion barrels. If so, it would dwarf Saudi Arabia's Ghawar, the world's biggest field, which has produced about 55 billion barrels.
"

413 billion barrels is alot more than 9 months worth.

There might be 413 billion barrels of oil shale, but there aren't 413 barrels of oil. If there were a remote chance of these 413 billion barrels getting produced, it would be reflected in the spot markets.

However, the spot markets are indicating that oil supplies might decrease. So a bunch of people who've made careers out of predicting oil supply disagree with the journalist you're citing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
From the article on the ND fields
"The U.S. Geological Survey's Leigh Price, a Denver geochemist who died in 2000, estimated that the Bakken might hold 413 billion barrels. If so, it would dwarf Saudi Arabia's Ghawar, the world's biggest field, which has produced about 55 billion barrels.
"

413 billion barrels is alot more than 9 months worth.

There might be 413 billion barrels of oil shale, but there aren't 413 barrels of oil. If there were a remote chance of these 413 billion barrels getting produced, it would be reflected in the spot markets.

However, the spot markets are indicating that oil supplies might decrease. So a bunch of people who've made careers out of predicting oil supply disagree with the journalist you're citing.

First off please go actually read the articles, i have read them in industry publications and the predictions are that there are 413 billion barrels of recoverable oil. These are not oil shale deposits, this is a deposit trapped in dolomite. It is a thin layer that they have to hit and will take skill to hit but it is already being tapped.

quote:

XTO Energy Inc. agreed to pay $1.85 billion for drilling rights in an oil-producing area near the U.S.-Canadian border, highlighting the once-obscure field's growing importance. The move also reflects rising confidence by energy companies that oil will stay above $100 a barrel.

The Fort Worth, Texas, oil and natural-gas producer said it will buy rights to 352,000 acres in the Bakken Shale, which stretches across Montana, North Dakota and ...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121202919175028377.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

The Bakken Field is a shale field, not an oil field. There's a huge difference in how the stuff is recovered, and perhaps more importantly, the land use implications and impact of oil shale.

You might be able to farm around a working oil field. You certainly can't farm around a working oil shale mine, and I certainly wouldn't want to eat any food that came from the site of the mine after the mining has completed. One of the problems of leeching out oil shale is that it leaves a highly basic (caustic) residue that actually takes up more volume than the shale you got the oil from. How are we going to dispose of this?

We tried oil shale on a limited scale back in the '80s, and it left a big mess. Let's hope it doesn't happen again.

In any case, the Bakken Field is not an oil field. It is an oil shale deposit. Most oil fields cost about $40/barrel to recover oil. Oil shale costs closer to $100, before you factor in the environmental costs. At that price renewables look cheaper.

quote:

His new wealth springs from the Bakken formation, a sprawling deposit of high-quality crude beneath the durum-wheat fields of North Dakota, Montana and southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The Bakken may give the U.S. — the world's biggest importer of oil — a new domestic energy source.

Unlike the tar from Canada's oil sands, Bakken crude needs little refining. Swirl some of it in a Mason jar and it leaves a thin, honey-colored film along the sides. It's light — almost like gasoline — and sweet, meaning it's low in sulfur.

Best of all, the Bakken could be huge. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that the Bakken might hold 413 billion barrels. If so, it would dwarf Saudi Arabia's Ghawar, the world's biggest field, which has produced about 55 billion barrels.

quote:

Record oil prices netted Exxon Mobil a $10.89 billion profit in the first three months of the year, ...

Revenue hit $116.85 billion, ... (so less than 10% profits)

Exxon said it spent $5.5 billion on finding and developing new sources of oil and gas, up 30% from a year ago.
...

The company also paid $9.3 billion in income taxes, $8.4 billion in sales taxes, and $11.6 billion in royalties. (looks like exxon paid more than 7 billion dollars more in taxes than they received in profits)

quote:

Perhaps more surprising was this figure buried in the Exxon (XOM) report: $9.3 billion. That's how much Exxon paid in worldwide income taxes in the first quarter of 2008, representing a 49% tax rate on its gross income of $20.2 billion. ...

Blogger and economist Mark Perry generated a lively discussion when he pointed to Exxon's "all-time high" income-tax figure, noting it was a small portion of the company's overall $29.3 billion total tax payments in the quarter. In Exxon's defense, a commenter IDed as "Buy It Cheap" wrote, "These are relatively small profit margins. One should note that the federal and state governments that tack on their percentage 'profited' the most from every gallon of gas sold all the way along the value chain, without a modicum of risk."


From 2003 to 2007, Exxon's earnings grew by 89%, while income taxes grew by 170%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_

While we are on the subject of taxing oil companies lets take just one to see just what they pay in taxes already.

Exxon's 2007 Tax Bill: $30 Billion

(BOLDED COMMENTS MINE)

And in the first quarter of 2008 when we hold their record profits against them.

quote:

Record oil prices netted Exxon Mobil a $10.89 billion profit in the first three months of the year, ...

Revenue hit $116.85 billion, ... (so less than 10% profits)

Exxon said it spent $5.5 billion on finding and developing new sources of oil and gas, up 30% from a year ago.
...

The company also paid $9.3 billion in income taxes, $8.4 billion in sales taxes, and $11.6 billion in royalties. (looks like exxon paid more than 7 billion dollars more in taxes than they received in profits)

Yet another

quote:

Perhaps more surprising was this figure buried in the Exxon (XOM) report: $9.3 billion. That's how much Exxon paid in worldwide income taxes in the first quarter of 2008, representing a 49% tax rate on its gross income of $20.2 billion. ...

Blogger and economist Mark Perry generated a lively discussion when he pointed to Exxon's "all-time high" income-tax figure, noting it was a small portion of the company's overall $29.3 billion total tax payments in the quarter. In Exxon's defense, a commenter IDed as "Buy It Cheap" wrote, "These are relatively small profit margins. One should note that the federal and state governments that tack on their percentage 'profited' the most from every gallon of gas sold all the way along the value chain, without a modicum of risk."


From 2003 to 2007, Exxon's earnings grew by 89%, while income taxes grew by 170%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc

That's because they were producing oil from government property.

Personally, the notion of producing oil on somebody else's reserves and getting to keep about half of the profits seems like a pretty good deal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
That's because they were producing oil from government property.

Personally, the notion of producing oil on somebody else's reserves and getting to keep about half of the profits seems like a pretty good deal.