PDA

View Full Version : Oil production



John Smith
10-17-2012, 07:51 AM
I thought this was a subject discussed in the debate that could use a longer discussion.

As I saw it, Romney wasn't denying that oil production was up so much as he was complaining where that increased production came from.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I see this is Obama got production up by coercing the oil companies to drill for oil in places already designated for that purpose and, importantly, where the oil would actually be available reasonably quickly. Under Romney's plan the okay for drilling in other places would be granted sooner, but getting the oil would take longer and, had we gone down his path, drilling might be up, but would production be up?


I don't think my car much cares where we we drill.

I do think that it is an important part of this equation that we begin with those places that produce the oil most quickly.

skipper68
10-17-2012, 11:04 AM
It's not so much the oil production being up, as it has to do with how much we export out of the USA. Their should be large export tariffs, in my opinion. These speculators are keeping the prices high.
We are still at war, and with so many unemployed or under employed, fuel is now one of the biggest expenses in their income.
This could free up this money for other things, like food and housing.

Bob Adams
10-17-2012, 12:03 PM
Lee? Hello??? Lee?????

hanleyclifford
10-17-2012, 12:07 PM
Yeah, what about this export/import thing that the oil companies do?

Steve McMahon
10-17-2012, 12:29 PM
It was refreshing to see Obama at least recognising the need for development of future energy sources in the post (artificially cheap) oil world. Kind of funny how Romney assumed that the Canadians would let the keystone pipeline happen as if it were America's right to have it.

LeeG
10-17-2012, 02:05 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I see this is Obama got production up by coercing the oil companies to drill for oil in places already designated for that purpose and, importantly, where the oil would actually be available reasonably quickly. Under Romney's plan the okay for drilling in other places would be granted sooner, but getting the oil would take longer and, had we gone down his path, drilling might be up, but would production be up?


I don't think my car much cares where we we drill.

I do think that it is an important part of this equation that we begin with those places that produce the oil most quickly.

Obama didn't increase US oil production. Higher oil prices set on the world market made more expensive oil profitable for extraction. If the price of oil stayed around $40 barrel US production would have continued to decline.
Basically if you're looking for increased production in the US you're looking for prices that bring demand destruction through higher prices. Which is exactly what has happened in the last five years with consumption dropping a much larger amount than production increased.

If you want to thank someone for increased US production it's Chinese consumption and declining world exports bringing higher prices.

Bob Adams
10-17-2012, 02:08 PM
Thank goodness Lee. This thread has been up most of the day with no response from you....I was getting worried!

BA.Barcolounger
10-17-2012, 02:09 PM
Romney cherrypicked the time period where he claimed public land production went down. It went down for one year, it just so happened to be the year that a well burst in the Gulf of Mexico, shutting down wells throughout the area.

BA.Barcolounger
10-17-2012, 02:10 PM
Also, that bullpoopie about Keystone.

Keystone was planned to be an EXPORT pipeline. The US would get none of the benefits and all of the risk.

LeeG
10-17-2012, 02:12 PM
It's not so much the oil production being up, as it has to do with how much we export out of the USA. Their should be large export tariffs, in my opinion. These speculators are keeping the prices high.
We are still at war, and with so many unemployed or under employed, fuel is now one of the biggest expenses in their income.
This could free up this money for other things, like food and housing.

The US doesn't export oil, we import oil and export a small amount of refined oil products which is something you want to have happen when domestic consumption of refined oil products declines. Speculators are a part of any market.

LeeG
10-17-2012, 02:16 PM
Also, that bullpoopie about Keystone.

Keystone was planned to be an EXPORT pipeline. The US would get none of the benefits and all of the risk.

Keystone will be very good for Canadadian oil companies as it will ensure they get higher prices for their product and force midwesterners to pay similar prices for gas as people on the coasts. I'm all for it.

Orange
10-17-2012, 03:32 PM
I believe what Mitt Romney was referring to in the debate is the Obama administration putting more federal lands off limits to fossil fuel exploration. Investors.com has written some about the issue. The new oil finds have occurred on private lands, using new technology.

"Restricting Supply To Boost Prices"


http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040912-607160-obama-bans-drilling-to-raise-gas-prices-webhed-how-obama-restricts-oil-supply-to-raise-gas-prices.htm?p=full

snippet:


...Under Obama, the American Petroleum Institute notes, leases on federal lands in the West are down 44%, while permits and new well drilling are both down 39% compared with 2007 levels.
In the wake of the BP oil spill, Obama shut down most Gulf of Mexico drilling and even after the moratorium was officially lifted, it continued through a glacial permitting process.
There's been a 57% drop in monthly deep-water permits over the last three years, according to the Greater New Orleans Gulf Permit Index.
Only 2.2% of federal offshore land is currently being leased for production, not to mention the 10 billion barrels locked up in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, where drilling would take place on just 2,000 of 19 million acres.
Out West, we may have what could be called a "Persia on the Plains." A Rand Corp. study says the Green River Formation, which covers parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, has the largest known oil shale deposits in the world, holding from 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of crude.
This is four times the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Most of it is all locked up by federal edict.
The president counts oil among the energy sources of the past. Yet the Congressional Research Service reports the U.S. has at least 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil — enough oil to meet all U.S. needs without importing any oil for more than 50 years. As technology advances, so do our "proven" reserves. Sounds like an energy source of the future to us.
Lifting our domestic drilling ban would dramatically lower prices.
It would also keep our money here instead of going overseas in what has been called the greatest transfer of wealth among nations in human history.


Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040912-607160-obama-bans-drilling-to-raise-gas-prices-webhed-how-obama-restricts-oil-supply-to-raise-gas-prices.htm#ixzz29af2Vtg8

LeeG
10-17-2012, 04:04 PM
I believe what Mitt Romney was referring to in the debate is the Obama administration putting more federal lands off limits to fossil fuel exploration. Investors.com has written some about the issue. The new oil finds have occurred on private lands, using new technology.



"Restricting Supply To Boost Prices"


http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040912-607160-obama-bans-drilling-to-raise-gas-prices-webhed-how-obama-restricts-oil-supply-to-raise-gas-prices.htm?p=full

snippet:

Lifting our domestic drilling ban would dramatically lower prices.


Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040912-607160-obama-bans-drilling-to-raise-gas-prices-webhed-how-obama-restricts-oil-supply-to-raise-gas-prices.htm#ixzz29af2Vtg8

Lifting restrictions for economical oil or massively subsidizing domestic drilling with the production of uneconomical oil will not lower prices set on the world market. That is exactly the delusion I'm speaking of.

B_B
10-17-2012, 04:20 PM
...Kind of funny how Romney assumed that the Canadians would let the keystone pipeline happen as if it were America's right to have it.
I didn't see the debate so I don't know what Romney said.

But, the Keystone pipeline exists today, all the way to Cushing, OK.

The Keystone XL proposed pipeline received Canadian regulatory approval in March 2010.

The only Canadians left to have any say in whether the US gets Keystone XL is TransCanada Corp., the proponent.

Nicholas Scheuer
10-17-2012, 05:43 PM
Aren't oil prices goverened by the oil "Free Market"? Isn't releasing Stratejic Oil Stores about the only way Washington can influence prices downward? Mittens said nothing about that, seeming to claim that more domestic oil drilling would lower prices. Actually , we need more refimnery capacity before we can deliver much more oil to the market. The recent price spike in California was due to TWO refinery problems.


Sorry to confuse Repugs here with facts.

Chip-skiff
10-17-2012, 06:21 PM
Aren't oil prices governed by the oil "Free Market"?

I have to laugh at all the Free Market cheerleaders soiling their underpants over gas prices. But it's a political ploy, something that causes public dissatisfaction that they can blame on Obama. They certainly aren't complaining about the record profits that Big Oil has been raking in the last few years.

John Smith
10-17-2012, 06:42 PM
Obama didn't increase US oil production. Higher oil prices set on the world market made more expensive oil profitable for extraction. If the price of oil stayed around $40 barrel US production would have continued to decline.
Basically if you're looking for increased production in the US you're looking for prices that bring demand destruction through higher prices. Which is exactly what has happened in the last five years with consumption dropping a much larger amount than production increased.

If you want to thank someone for increased US production it's Chinese consumption and declining world exports bringing higher prices.

So you don't deny domestic production is up, you only dispute the reason. Romney disputes the locatiion of the additional production.

My question, I think, is if production is up 14%, my car doesn't care if that extra production is coming from public or private land or offshore drilling. I see that as pointless argument.

No one who seriously looks at the numbers can honestly believe we can drill our way to energy independence: we have to little oil, and world demand is going up. It's also my understanding that even if we produce it here it goes onto the world market.

I didn't notice anyone responding the refinery part. I'm not sure what Romney's point here was. Is it the government's job to set gas prices? How much impact can a president have? guess that depends on the party of the president.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzEnKdBAb_o

And it's sure not the government's job to build refineries: wouldn't that be socialism?

Meanwhile there is a "new age" type of vehicle availble that uses less gas. That seems a positive thing. A great deal of activity seems to be happening in the world of renewable sources as well as gas and coal.

bottom line here, debate wise, is Romney seems to be accusing Obama of failing to do exactly what Obama has been doing, although Mitt, one would think, would believe ALL of this should be left entirely to the private sector with Zero public help.

skipper68
10-17-2012, 06:53 PM
First- the BP blow out might be capped, but there is another breach possibly caused by them, that is still pouring crude in the Gulf of Mexico.
BP declined to comment. But a BP internal slide presentation said the new oil sheen probably came from the riser, a long piece of pipe that had connected the drilling rig to the well a mile below the sea surface.

The presentation said that "the size and persistence of this slick, the persistent location of the oil slick origin point, the chemistry of the samples taken from the slick . . . suggest that the likely source of the slick is a leak of Macondo . . . oil mixed with drilling mud that had been trapped in the riser of the Deepwater Horizon rig."http://www.registercitizen.com/articles/2012/10/11/news/doc5076c1ecb5970563200374.txt
Second, yes we are exporting much crude.
U.S. Was Net Oil-Product Exporter for First Time Since 1949 ...
www.bloomberg.com/news/​2012-02-29/​...oil-product-exporter-in-2011.html

Feb 29, 2012 A crude oil well site outside South Heart, North Dakota.

U.S. Exports of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products
www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_nus-z00_mbblpd_​m.htm
Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12

Total
2,980 3,064 3,263 3,194 3,209 3,211
Crude Oil
59 60 32 69 46 77
Liquefied Petroleum Gases
177 187 221 171 194 203
You can look at the graphs, but again I say, we are a country at war.
We are in a depression of sorts also. Our country and citizens should come first.
As far as drilling in the Gulf- it is a problem that is still having devastating consequences. Shutting it down is a great idea still. The unknown ramifications are still developing years later.
As far as Keystone, we (The USA)are expected to take all the risks, so that pipeline can specifically go to one port that does not charge exporting fees and taxes. All for a few temporary jobs.

B_B
10-17-2012, 08:51 PM
...As far as Keystone, we (The USA)are expected to take all the risks, so that pipeline can specifically go to one port that does not charge exporting fees and taxes. All for a few temporary jobs.
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline is to act as a conduit for both Canadian bitumen/synthetic and also to transport US oil from Baker, Montana, where it will transport oil from the Bakken oil fields - the oil fields almost single handedly responsible for the recent American oil production increase.

The jobs at stake are not merely temporary construction jobs at all.

Right now Bakken oil is primarily moved by rail line - not an exactly an inexpensive, nor an environmentally friendly way, to move oil.

LeeG
10-17-2012, 09:47 PM
So you don't deny domestic production is up, you only dispute the reason. Romney disputes the locatiion of the additional production.


Most of the increase in production came from using advanced extraction techniques in existing fields and not North Dakota and the Bakken Formation although they are significant. I don't dispute the reason, the reason is that the price of oil has gone up, the identity or policies of the POTUS are pretty much irrelevant. We aren't the world, contrary to some.

skipper68
10-17-2012, 10:01 PM
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline is to act as a conduit for both Canadian bitumen/synthetic and also to transport US oil from Baker, Montana, where it will transport oil from the Bakken oil fields - the oil fields almost single handedly responsible for the recent American oil production increase.

The jobs at stake are not merely temporary construction jobs at all.

Right now Bakken oil is primarily moved by rail line - not an exactly an inexpensive, nor an environmentally friendly way, to move oil. BUT, safer than going through quake fault lines. The other question is why the pipeline has to go "THERE"?
All across the USA they have refiners.Look into the tax breaks on where the pipeline ends. And WHY.

LeeG
10-18-2012, 04:11 AM
I believe what Mitt Romney was referring to in the debate is the Obama administration putting more federal lands off limits to fossil fuel exploration. Investors.com has written some about the issue. The new oil finds have occurred on private lands, using new technology.
[COLOR]

that's because that is where most of the oil is, on private lands. The idea that Obama is restricting oil production by not opening more federal lands is bs.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/17/1031891/fact-check-romney-is-wrong-about-energy-development-on-public-lands/?mobile=wp

Governor Romney and his lead energy advisor, oil and gas tycoon Harold Hamm, have repeatedly stated that oil and gas development on public lands has not kept pace with state and private lands.* They conveniently leave out the fact that it is not geologically possible for that to happen. *The Energy Information Agency released a map that shows the vast majority of the current oil and gas shale plays in the lower 48 states are not on public lands. As EIA administrator Adam Sieminski noted in Congressional testimony in August, “The geology is working in favor of non-federal landowners.”

John Smith
10-18-2012, 05:00 AM
Most of the increase in production came from using advanced extraction techniques in existing fields and not North Dakota and the Bakken Formation although they are significant. I don't dispute the reason, the reason is that the price of oil has gone up, the identity or policies of the POTUS are pretty much irrelevant. We aren't the world, contrary to some.

Sounds good and reasonable.

It is sad that people hold opinions as to the president's ability to control gas prices based solely on the party of the president at the moment.

Energy costs are a problem; going to be a bigger problem. I think commuting costs should be tax deductible, but that doesn't even seem to come up. People have to get to work.

Would you agree that this whole issue, debate wise, is a pointless argument?

LeeG
10-18-2012, 05:47 AM
Would you agree that this whole issue, debate wise, is a pointless argument?

The issue of increased domestic production as some kind of response to high oil prices? Hell yes it's pointless, it's one of the most blatant displays of denial and willful ignorance around. It's like not being able to tell the difference in size between a 150lb dinghy and the 12,000lb sailboat it's tied to.

Dumah
10-18-2012, 07:21 AM
What boggles my mind is the fact that the largest consumer of US domestic oil production appears to be the US government, primarily your military. As the rest of the globe neither wants or needs your military presence, think of the single resource that would now be available for PRIVATE consumption. Besides the over priced, overkill military weapons you deploy, I suggest the next largest expense would be fuel. How can one justify the cost of airborne refueling, what is the price per gallon (or pound) vs refueling from a bowser? Civilian usage won't stop, the only other place for petroleum savings is for your country to finally realize you simply can't afford to be the self appointed policeman for the globe. I fail to understand how a supposedly smart and clever nation as yours can be so blind to what is so obvious to the rest of us, your determination to "own" all the available resources at everyones expense but your own. It has become very clear that your military is NOT "defending freedom" but rather a thug for "Big Oil"

Cheers, Dumah
Halifax, NS

LeeG
10-18-2012, 08:35 AM
What boggles my mind is the fact that the largest consumer of US domestic oil production appears to be the US government, primarily your military. As the rest of the globe neither wants or needs your military presence, think of the single resource that would now be available for PRIVATE consumption. Besides the over priced, overkill military weapons you deploy, I suggest the next largest expense would be fuel. How can one justify the cost of airborne refueling, what is the price per gallon (or pound) vs refueling from a bowser? Civilian usage won't stop, the only other place for petroleum savings is for your country to finally realize you simply can't afford to be the self appointed policeman for the globe. I fail to understand how a supposedly smart and clever nation as yours can be so blind to what is so obvious to the rest of us, your determination to "own" all the available resources at everyones expense but your own. It has become very clear that your military is NOT "defending freedom" but rather a thug for "Big Oil"

Cheers, Dumah
Halifax, NS

Actually it is at our expense. Our lack of planning for a known eventuality of declining oil supplies means we're opting for recession and unemployment when there's another price shock. I don't have the numbers but while the military may be the largest consumer of oil in the gov't I'm pretty sure civilian and commercial consumption vastly exceeds military, something to look up.

Ok, looked it up. Looks like the military uses 2% of total oil consumption. Bookkeeping is funny.

John Smith
10-18-2012, 08:43 AM
Actually it is at our expense. Our lack of planning for a known eventuality of declining oil supplies means we're opting for recession and unemployment when there's another price shock. I don't have the numbers but while the military may be the largest consumer of oil in the gov't I'm pretty sure civilian and commercial consumption exceeds military, something to look up.


I think our desire for such a bloated military is the root of a number of our problems. I'm sure they contribute to the fact that we use more oil than anyone else, and when we compare our tax rates to those in other countries we ignore the fact that we are financing a much larger and more expensive military than those other nations are.

Recent years have brought forth those who refuse to believe that we cannot drill our way to where we'd like to be.

I find it peculiar, for lack of a better world, that the party who wants government out of the way of private industry would suggest the government should do anything to set oil prices.

In the bigger picture this seems a pointless waist of time. It's bothersome that this would drive someone's vote.

LeeG
10-18-2012, 09:35 AM
I find it peculiar, for lack of a better world, that the party who wants government out of the way of private industry would suggest the government should do anything to set oil prices.



That is queer, kind of a self-delusion yoga practice.

LeeG
10-18-2012, 02:26 PM
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline is to act as a conduit for both Canadian bitumen/synthetic and also to transport US oil from Baker, Montana, where it will transport oil from the Bakken oil fields - the oil fields almost single handedly responsible for the recent American oil production increase.
.

Here we go, check out the production history in PADD 2 and PADD 3 where you can get 30yr production to 2012. Whether you pick North Dakota and Texas alone or within their respective regions you can see that Texas produced a larger increase in volume of oil than North Dakota. ND percentage increase is huge but it's starting from a much lower base level.

Folks are thinking enhanced recovery techniques are discovering mini Saudi Arabias in North Dakota but they're actually getting more oil out of older fields.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_m.htm

B_B
10-18-2012, 03:02 PM
Here we go, check out the production history in PADD 2 and PADD 3 where you can get 30yr production to 2012. Whether you pick North Dakota and Texas alone or within their respective regions you can see that Texas produced a larger increase in volume of oil than North Dakota. ND percentage increase is huge but it's starting from a much lower base level.

Folks are thinking enhanced recovery techniques are discovering mini Saudi Arabias in North Dakota but they're actually getting more oil out of older fields.
Texas and ND account for 52% and 38% of production increase since the 2008 production low. Bakken has been producing oil since the 70's, IIRC, so it too is one of the older fields which is being exploited more effectively with new technology.

But the larger point is that this stuff is going to somewhere and Keystone XL is designed to do just that, move stuff from the re-exploitable old fields in the midwest to refineries, and ports, elsewhere.

LeeG
10-18-2012, 03:16 PM
Texas and ND account for 52% and 38% of production increase since the 2008 production low. Bakken has been producing oil since the 70's, IIRC, so it too is one of the older fields which is being exploited more effectively with new technology.

But the larger point is that this stuff is going to somewhere and Keystone XL is designed to do just that, move stuff from the re-exploitable old fields in the midwest to refineries, and ports, elsewhere.

Thx, my reading of this stuff somewhat erratic and random. I wonder how much of the reason for greater extraction in Texas is because the infrastructure is there with existing wells and it's developing in ND or limited because of the high rate of depletion in the Bakken.

B_B
10-18-2012, 04:10 PM
Thx, my reading of this stuff somewhat erratic and random. I wonder how much of the reason for greater extraction in Texas is because the infrastructure is there with existing wells and it's developing in ND or limited because of the high rate of depletion in the Bakken.
Is the Texas increase in production due to old conventional plays or due to Eagle Ford?
Eagle Ford has 280 operational rigs, ND is drilling 35 wells a week. I suspect Texas' increase is primarily due to shale oil exploitation, just like ND; but I'm not an expert, I only play one on the internet ... :D

ccmanuals
10-18-2012, 04:21 PM
Oil production is one aspect but in my mind an important question is where is it being sold and shipped to? Remember oil is a global product.