The Steamboat Pilot & Today

JazzSlave (anonymous)
July 17, 2008 at 7:13 a.m.
› Suggest removal

For those who deride drilling at ANWR & the Outer Continental Shelf, note the observation of nanny-state Socialist Chuck Schumer on the Senate Floor yesterday, re: the impact of elevated production in Saudi Arabia:

“If they [Saudi Arabia] produced half a million barrels more oil a day the price would come down a very significant amount and, at the same time, it would stop the speculation that keeps driving up the price of oil.”

ANWR alone is projected to produce a million barrels a day. Had President Clinton not vetoed ANWR drilling 13 years ago, those million barrels a day would be available to us now, and we wouldn't be whining about $4 gas.

According to Schumer, half a million barrels a day from saudi arabia would cause the price of oil to “come down a very significant amount.” Consider what twice that amount - produced in america through American jobs - would do.

Don’t take it from me, take it from the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.

And am I the only one who finds it just a tad hypoctritical for Schumer - one of the loudest complainers about our dependence on foreign oil - to be lobbying for more from Saudi Arabia, while opposing development of our own resources?

justathought (anonymous)
July 17, 2008 at 9:47 a.m.
› Suggest removal

Is it just a coincidence that Bush okays off shore drilling and oil prices begin coming down, slowly, but down? Could speculators be a little afraid we might wean ourselves off of their product in favor of our own?

A tad hypocritical is putting it mildly, isn't it wonderful that we have these kind of politicians looking out for the American people? A little scary that it was the American people that put the likes of Schumer in office though.

bwatterson (anonymous)
July 17, 2008 at 9:49 a.m.
› Suggest removal

Some recent info I've read:

Back in 1995, when President Clinton vetoed legislation to permit drilling in ANWR, environmentalists argued that it would do no good for Washington to permit drilling in the Alaskan refuge because Americans wouldn't see any oil for 10 years. Who doesn't want that oil now?

Obama told reporters that offshore drilling wouldn't bring relief to consumers for five years — other Democrats say 10 years — at the soonest. He also touts the $150 billion he wants to spend over 10 years on the “green energy sector” — that money won't provide instant results, either.

Barack Obama is stuck with the Democrats' energy policy — which is denial of reality. Conservation is certainly smart, but it doesn't create anything. Global demand for energy is going up. The Dept. of Energy released a report indicating energy demand going up by 60% in the next couple of decades. They indicate we'll need everything, from the dreaded fossil fuels, to alternative energy (i.e. bio, nuclear, wind, solar, etc, etc.). But they make no mistake in saying that fossil fuels must lead the way. What more do you need to know?

Rayola Dougher, an economic analyst for the American Petroleum Institute, estimated that there are 1 million to 2 million barrels of oil per day that could be drilled in now-restricted coastal areas — “that's 10-20 percent of what we're importing.” That oil could be on the market in as soon as five years.

Besides ANWR we have other vast oil reserves, that are already drilled and capped, which we're not producing. We're also the Saudia Arbia of coal. New, cleaner technologies have been continually improving emission levels over the last few decades. Coal liquification and gasification technologies are there, if the environmental alarmists would just check the available data with an open mind before the usual knee-jerk roadblocks.

American laws and technology ensure a rig off Florida or in Alaska has far less chance of springing a leak than one in the Persian Gulf or the Russian tundra. Did anyone hear of oil seeps on existing Gulf rigs after Katrina ? If there really is a shared “planet earth,” then aren't we all its collective stewards? By locking out energy exploration in the United States, we are encouraging it almost everywhere else, often with lower standards.

JazzSlave (anonymous)
July 17, 2008 at 10:40 a.m.
› Suggest removal

justathought:

It's not in the least bit coincidental. Speculators speculate. They gamble on what they believe future pricing will be.

They listened to W and started selling the market before a thimblefull of oil has been extracted. If Congress seals the deal, prices will continue to fall. That's how traders work - they discount the future.

Democrats have been slamming the President all week. They say it'll take a decade for any of that oil to make it to the marketplace (they're right); and oil prices won't decline for at least that long (they're wrong). And they, along with McCain & Obama, trash the speculators. And this week, we've seen a real world example as to WHY they're wrong. Reid, Pelosi, Salazar, McCain, Obama… ALL of them; along with an American media too stupid to even understand the issue, let alone make any effort to explain it to anybody.

We could actually begin extracting oil off the coast of California within one year if the moratorium is lifted. The Cali deposits are under shallow water in an area that's already been explored. Drilling platforms have been there since BEFORE the moratorium. They're talking about 10 billion barrels off the Cali coast.

But hey - better to go with Idiot Schumer's recommendation & buy from Saudi Arabia instead of taking care of ourselves.

steamboatsconscience (anonymous)
July 17, 2008 at 5:49 p.m.
› Suggest removal

nothought
if you think that oil went down because Bush dropped the symbolic executive order and scared “speculators” you are both totally naive and totally ignorant of how the market works.
jazz
mind telling me where all the drilling rigs are going to come from to get this oil out by next year? any idea how many rigs are presently available worldwide?
can you tell me where the oil we are now pumping out of Prudhoe Bay goes?
guess you been drinking the Kudlow kool aid lately

steamboatsconscience (anonymous)
July 17, 2008 at 6:03 p.m.
› Suggest removal

I'll answer one of the questions for you
Dearth of Ships Delays Drilling of Offshore Oil
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/busine…

As President Bush calls for repealing a ban on drilling off most of the coast of the United States, a shortage of ships used for deep-water offshore drilling promises to impede any rapid turnaround in oil exploration and supply.

In recent years, this global shortage of drill-ships has created a critical bottleneck, frustrating energy company executives and constraining their ability to exploit known reserves or find new ones. Slow growth in oil supplies, at a time of soaring demand, has been a major factor in the spike of oil and gasoline prices.

spukomy (anonymous)
July 18, 2008 at 2:58 a.m.
› Suggest removal

SBC, Ships can be built a lot easier than shelves can be drilled. If Congress is really interested in bringing down the price of fuel, they will allow drilling soon. If not, they will stall the process and tax Big Oil. Then Big Oil will pass that cost (taxes) on to us.

I still don't understand what anyone has against drilling in America. The technology is much more advanced and the terrain is sometimes so remote (ANWAR). Even underwater exploration has come great lenghts.

I saw an interview with the Governor of Alaska a couple months ago. She cited the fact that when Alaska wanted to become part of the US, they offered their abundant above-ground resources as a trade out for being part of the States. Now, they want to contribute. Yet, Congress won't let it happen.

Ships aren't the problem.

id04sp (anonymous)
July 18, 2008 at 4:42 a.m.
› Suggest removal

If Clinton had allowed drilling in ANWR 13 years ago, we'd have only had MORE unnecessary large SUVs and high-powered cars trying to burn it. That's because Americans are dumb about such things.

Nevertheless, NOW it makes sense to exploit all available US sources for the comfort of the population and the good of the economy.

We went through a lot of cultural change when oil prices went up back in the 70s. Cars were getting 12 and 13 mpg then, and it took a while to catch up. People got comfortable in the last few years and started wasting fuel because they could afford it. Also, the credit boom contributed to the problem by allowing people with marginal income to purchase gas-hog cars they can't afford now. A renter I know about bought a new F-150 truck on credit last year to get a cash rebate and then used the rebate to pay his rent, forestalling eviction by another month. Unbelievable, right?

Energy efficiency has slowly evolved in the last 34 years, but the gains have been consumed by our increasing population. We're not short on oil; we're long on people. You really want to see prices come down? Reduce the population by about 2.5 Billion and they'll be GIVING the stuff away in Saudi Arabia to save the expense of storing it.

Okay, that's a rediculous example, but what we're seeing is a normal economy, driven by human behavior, in action. On the other hand, wind and sunlight are still free, and the environment around us is full of energy that can be exploited as we learn to use it more efficiently. Even something as simple as a modern power tool generates far more horsepower from electricity for the same weight today than they did 30 years ago because of advances in motor technology. LED lights use 1/10 as much electricity as traditional bulbs. These things are possible because of human innovation and scientific research.

We're getting cleaner and more efficient all the time. That's going to let us support more and more people from the same energy supply. Figuring out how to limit demand is the real problem. Maybe we should start taxing people who have more than 2 kids instead of giving them tax breaks. A progressive tax is one way to make people conserve — just make it more expensive as use goes up. Put an excise tax on larger vehicles, and make people pay more when they use more UNLESS the use matches a genuine need. Tax excessive speed too — it can be done.

People will conserve if you give them an economic incentive to do so — meaning you penalize them for waste. That's what's happening right now at your local gas pump.

justathought (anonymous)
July 18, 2008 at 8:56 a.m.
› Suggest removal

Jazz, Hopefully some day we will be able to have a conversation or debate without small minds resorting to name calling because we don't happen to agree with them. Too bad, this could have been a rather spirited debate but it turns childish quickly when someones first post on the subject are insults toward other posters, like that will make us “see the light”. Thanks for trying to start an adult conversation. Later.

steamboatsconscience (anonymous)
July 18, 2008 at 11:09 a.m.
› Suggest removal

nothought
I dont remember insulting you., just pointing out that your views and comments are not based in fact and are misleading.
get your facts straight before spouting off and be able to prove them.
and its not like you have never trashed anyone here before, right?

JazzSlave (anonymous)
July 18, 2008 at 11:23 a.m.
› Suggest removal

steamboatsconscience:

There are a handful of shallow-water platforms that have been sitting off the Cali coast, unused, since before the moratorium was imposed. Those platforms can be operational in less than a year, in the areas for which they were intended.

Your 'where's the shipping capacity gonna come from' question was answered in the article you cited:

“These record prices have spurred a new wave of drill-ship construction. This boom could lead to renewed offshore oil exploration that would eventually bring more supplies to the oil market, and push down prices.

Already, 16 new drill-ships are scheduled to be delivered to oil companies this year — more than double the number delivered over the last six years combined. In fact, 75 ultra-deepwater rigs should be delivered from 2008 to 2011, according to ODS-Petrodata, a firm that tracks drilling rigs.”

Supply and demand. It's not difficult.

The bigger issue is refining capacity. The Idiot Left, abetted by the Spineless Right, has seen to it that we haven't built a single refinery since 1976. If drilling is ramped up to the extent that it needs to be, we either build additional refineries or ship the crude abroad and pay foreign companies to refine it for us.

steamboatsconscience (anonymous)
July 18, 2008 at 12:07 p.m.
› Suggest removal

jazz
glad we agree that all politicians are either idiots or spineless.
I believe all those 16 rigs already are spoken for by Petrobras in Brazil. the rest go to the highest bidder, which by 2011 will be ridiculous.
you are right about refining capacity. Cali oil is also sour crude of which there is limited refining capacity worldwide. there are, right now, tankers full of sour crude floating on the ocean with no where to go because its heavy sour. Iran, Venezuela, Saudi, Cali, Alaska and Canadian oil sand crude is all sour thats why the oil produced in Prudhoe goes to Asia and not to the lower 48. And so will any oil produced in the ANWR. so you tell me.
I'm not opposed to offshore drilling, I'm just sick and tired of the spineless idiots (the Administration and Congrease) jumping on any bandwagon without getting the facts and consequences first, because they need to get reelected this year and any BS they can say they support that might bring gas prices down will get them votes. politicians have no business meddling in the markets, all they do is screw things up even more. the markets always sort themselves out without their meddling.
hope you all are ready for the oil rigs that will be adding to the traffic on Lincoln when they start drilling in Milner.
and for all of you folks in Silver Spur, I hope you own the mineral rights on your lots, cause there's a lot of shale under your homes!LOL

JazzSlave (anonymous)
July 18, 2008 at 12:28 p.m.
› Suggest removal

Unfortunately, both exectutive and congressional action are required to get things moving. W is the most honest actor in this particular melodrama - he's not shilling for reelection.

steamboatsconscience (anonymous)
July 18, 2008 at 12:54 p.m.
› Suggest removal

Posturing: intransitive verb1: to assume a posture; especially : to strike a pose for effect 2: to assume an artificial or pretended attitude.
he is just shifting the blame for his total inaction for 8 years.
I do believe his political party held the majority until 2006.

JazzSlave (anonymous)
July 18, 2008 at 1:24 p.m.
› Suggest removal

How about Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and every Congressional session for the last 40 years? Any honest brokers in there, or are they all poseurs? Is there anyone in today's arena whom you believe to be honestly dealing with energy policy?

steamboatsconscience (anonymous)
July 18, 2008 at 1:50 p.m.
› Suggest removal

how about listening to someone without a political agenda, namely T Boone Pickens
Pickens not in it for the money with his energy plan
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/pi…

Which Way Is the Wind Blowing?
t. boone pickens knows something about the energy business, and right now he's really, really into wind. His private firm, Mesa Power, is buying leases in the American heartland for a massive wind-power project whose first phase includes about 700 windmills on 400,000 acres near Pampa, Tex. By its completion in 2014, Pampa should be the world's largest wind farm, generating enough electricity to light 1.3 million homes.
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB1214…

or this
http://www.myphill.com/index.htm

bwatterson (anonymous)
July 18, 2008 at 4:17 p.m.
› Suggest removal

SBC:

Drill it and they will come.

grannyrett (anonymous)
July 18, 2008 at 10:07 p.m.
› Suggest removal

I have a brother in the oil pumping business. They can move in and get the oil in the pipelines within two months of the rig moving off site. Unfortunately, there are some months when they can not pump. Oil refineries are maxed out. More oil is great, but until we have more refineries to deal with more oil, it isn't going to do us a lot of good. Governor of Colorado in in the pocket of the environmentalists, so he isn't going to help anyone, anywhere.

oneski (anonymous)
July 19, 2008 at 7:58 a.m.
› Suggest removal

From what has been estimated, the oil sands of Alberta are the the next largest oil supply after Saudi. Why aren't we doing more with Canada?

steamboatsconscience (anonymous)
July 19, 2008 at 10:38 a.m.
› Suggest removal

oneski
we get the majority of our oil from Canada
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petro…

steamboatsconscience (anonymous)
July 19, 2008 at 4:06 p.m.
› Suggest removal

http://www.pickensplan.com/

JazzSlave (anonymous)
July 21, 2008 at 9:08 a.m.
› Suggest removal

In his typical straightforward, no BS fashion, Steven Den Beste takes after the alternative fuel religionists:

http://chizumatic.mee.nu/ghosts_of_my_pa…

“In order for “alternate energy” to become feasible, it has to satisfy all of the following criteria:

1. It has to be huge (in terms of both energy and power)
2. It has to be reliable (not intermittent or unschedulable)
3. It has to be concentrated (not diffuse)
4. It has to be possible to utilize it efficiently
5. The capital investment and operating cost to utilize it has to be comparable to existing energy sources (per gigawatt, and per terajoule).

If it fails to satisfy any of those, then it can't scale enough to make any difference. Solar power fails #3, and currently it also fails #5. (It also partially fails #2, but there are ways to work around that.)

The only sources of energy available to us now that satisfy all five are petroleum, coal, hydro, and nuclear.

My rule of thumb is that I'm not interested in any “alternate energy” until someone shows me how to scale it to produce at least 1% of our current energy usage. America right now uses about 3.6 terawatts average, so 1% of that is about 36 gigawatts average.

Show me a plan to produce 36 gigawatts (average, not peak) using solar power, at a price no more than 30% greater than coal generation of comparable capacity, which can be implemented at that scale in 10-15 years. Then I'll pay attention.

Since solar power installations can only produce power for about 10 hours per day on average, that means that peak power production would need to be in the range of about 85 gigawatts to reach that 1%.

Without that, it's just religion, like all the people fascinated with wind and with biomass. And even if it did reach 1%, that still leaves the other 99% of our energy production to petroleum, coal, hydro, and nuclear.”