Can Drilling Plus Solve the Energy Problem?

I heard an interesting comment on NPR to the effect that the oil companies already have unused leases they could be drilling. They hold them so competitors won't drill them. So, my question would be, why are we opening up new lands for leases when we haven't drilled all the leases already available?

As for ANWR, I wish we had drilled it 20 years ago. Then the oil would be gone by now and we could move the discussion about energy forward a bit.

Just remember, NPR does NOT stand for non-political radio. The oil execs say those lands have been studied and are not worth drilling.

uh huh - then why do they continue to pay for the leases?

The oil execs also say, "we can't afford to drill for oil unless we get massive government subsidies and tax breaks - $150 a barrel is just not enough of an incentive."

If the oil companys are ripping the American people off, the why haven't the liberals in gov't and the media been able to document this?

Excellent point. Why indeed? Because the oil companies, like everyone else, are in business to make a profit and, last time I heard that was not a bad thing.....at least not in the mind of those doing instead of suckling at the teat of government.

There are two types of people in this world. Those that do and those that live of those that do. Just show me an example of an efficient liberal organization... one that produces something, anythinig except dependence.

I agree almost entirely, except there are 3 types of people.

Those who do.

Those who mooch.

Those who loot and take from the doers and give to the moochers for their own personal gains, votes, bribes, etc.

Skeptical Guy..... BINGO...you hit it onthe head...good shot.

Just show me an example of an efficient liberal organization...

Could you define that for us?

While your at it how about an example of an efficient conservative organization?

And here is another: an efficient Government organization. An Oxymoron.

Dragon

That's actually correct from what i have read as well. Oil companies love cheap leases because it boosts the assets on their balance sheets which attracts investors. Whether or not they can economically produce oil from newly leased lands might be a secondary question, but i will look into it more extensively and post something here or trackback to my blog at www.energyanalysis.org about it.

I believe they have to lease the property BEFORE they can set foot on it to even do the ground work to see if there is even any oil there.

Once they have the lease, they may find there is no oil but will maintain the lease because down the road new technology may reveal oil that was not known with older technology.

They may have found some oil but have determined that with (past) current drilling technology was not feasable to drill for. In the future with new technology this oil may be within reach.

So, the long and short is, there may not be oil on the Federal Land they have leased. There may be oil that they can't find today but may be able to find tomorrow. There may be oil there but they don't have the means to extract it economically today, but may be able to tomorrow.

ANWAR - The moose don't care. In fact, the moose have thrived and increased in numbers all along the Alaskan Pipe Line. The Alaskan Pipeline is slowing down and pumping less and less every year. ANWAR is right next to the existing pipe line. They would not need to build a new pipe line to get the oil out that is found in ANWAR. Adding oil capacity to the pipeline will extend the usable life of the pipelind for decades.

If they drill in ANWAR (or offshore, or anywhere) new oil will be on the market much sooner than the 10 or 15 year times that those who are against drilling anywhere put forth.

There is only two things we need to do now - Drill HERE, Kill THERE - NOW!

Travis

I wrote a summary of how much and how much impact ANWR would make:

http://energyanalysis.org/2008/06/09/us-strategic-petroleum-reserve-and-anwr/

I concluded that it might satisfy about 5% of U.S. oil demand in 10 years and last for about 22 years from 2018 to 2040, at which time the whole world would be running out of economically recoverable oil.

I will look into offshore drilling next. We have always drilled extensively in the Gulf of Mexico. I will see how much impact offshore oil from Western FL and the the U.S. east coast would make.

We wait with bated breath.

I know, I know, everyone has heard it all before but we should be investing more money into looking at recycling and new technology.

There are big oil reserves all over the planet and we have enough for the next 20-25 years (according to reports but I feel it might just last a lot longer than that).

Renewable energy should be looked at in more depth.

Yup, another one jumping on the 'renewable energy' bandwagon you could, and most probably will, be thinking. Its a big issue though.

Lifting the ban will improve the energy situation, but only for a while. Then once those reserves are depleted we will be back to the same situation as we are in now.

Think back over the past 22 years while money has been pumped into oil recovery and refineries. In those years, with limited financing, we have introduced a host of renewable sources of energy from wind to tidal to the first fuel cell attempts for cars. If we double that investment over the next 22 years, where do you think we would all be with renewable energy? Investment in the future technology's is the key.

Kind Regards

Kev Brown

We should exploit every resource necessary to bring to the cost of energy down. Our economy is the driving force in the world and if our economy suffers the world does also. Just watch what happens when our stock market dips...the world dips. We need to divorce ourselves from the tyranny of the Middle East Maniacs and Muslim extremists. Winston Churchill saw the danger of Hitler while Europe slept. We must recognize the danger of Muslim extremists now while Europe continues to sleep. They never learn... we must lead the way again or we will be embroiled in another mess of their making. Look at Bosnia and that mess. Europe slept, allowed the carnage to continue at their back door... forever afraid and too timid to act. Europe has abdicated its leadership in the world after it exploited the remainder of the world and then left their colonies to languish in a freedom they were not prepared to continue. Look at Africa...The Middle East.... Asia...the Indian Continent...The legacy of European greed and exploitation.

WHAT GOOD IS GIVING OPEN ENDED DRILLING CONTRACTS TO COMPANIESD THAT WILL NOT DRILL ON THE LAND THEY AND THE OPTIONS THEY HAVE NOW?

PUT RESTRICTIONS ON THE OIL LEASES LIKE THEY USE TO BEFORE REGEAN. IF THEY DON'T DRILL IN 2 YRS THE LEASE GOES UP FOR AUCTION.

ALSO COLLECT THE ROYALOTOES ON THE OIL, GAS, COAL, GOLD AND OTHER MINERAL TAKEN FROM PUBLIC LANDS.

REGULATIONS WORK.

Dear Dadw5boys, I believe that the oil pools already discovered and drilled off the Gulf coast and Gull Island should be used first before any future contracts and leases are exploited.

According to a source of mine the two pools together constitute more oil than is currently available in Saudi Arabia. I am not totally sure if the source is totally accurate but they have been in the past.

Dragon

P.S. I think your caps lock was on. All caps makes it appear that you are shouting. No offense.

Drilling for more oil and increasing the amount our oil companies have in reserve could lower the market price per barrel but our oil companies could also do that by buying more foreign oil or with oil shale or steam injecting. The goal of our oil companies is to maximize the profits for the stock holders, not selling cheap diesel and gas. Once we burn up our reserves in Alaska and offshore we will then be truly dependent on foreign oil.Why do we not use up the oil in foreign countries reserves first and save ours for our grand kids. The reason the price we pay now is because we have to. If Mexico allowed our oil company to drill offshore there, that would lower the price now as it would cause competition. We have our armies protecting the same oil they are selling us. maybe we should charge them for our cost.

Mike

This is not a matter of "their oil" or "our oil". By failing to drill oil here we are artifically limiting supply. The reason we began purchasing foreign oil was because our government dictated the price a driller could charge for oil depending on the price in effect at the time the well was drilled. If an oil well produced oil when the cost was $40/barrel, no matter what the cost of extraction, the driller could charge no more than $40/ barrel for that oil so they would drill elsewhere to allow themselves to pump oil at a current price. That practice encouraged purchase of foreign oil because there was no limit based on this artificial price control. I don't know if there are residual parts of the law still in existance but it started the surge in purchases of the "sweet " Saudi crude. When the price controls were removed there was no incentive to drill here and the enviornmentalists started their crusade to stop drilling here, in the Artic and on the seashores of the country.

Governmental meddeling started the rush to foreign oil, governmental meddling stopped drilling here and thereby limited supply raising the price.

The assinine part of it is that we as Americans tolerate this nonsense and not only tolerate it we finance it because we have funded the enviornmentalist Lobby through contributions and through "grants" for junk science "research".

Drill HERE! Drill Now! Go nuclear! Free America from the left wing enviornmentalists!

I am sorry but I can not believe that is still in effect, I believed when they allowed oil to be traded on the futures market that went away. If I am misinformed then I stand corrected. That is very possible being that I have no expertise and just adore CR-4

Mike

You may have missed the point. The point is that any interference with the price of any comodity results in unintended ( I hope unintended) consequences. Imagine if the government had decided that because vacuum tube manufacturers would loose market to the transistor they mandated that every time a transistor became cheaper to produce, there would be an increase in the price supports of the vacuum tube.

What incentive would there have been to make the transistor cheaper? Do you think we would have the computers and electronics we haave today or would we still be using vacuum tubes? I remember when a transistor cost $15 and a vacuum tube cost $2.50. Now you can't even find a vacuum tube at a store or in a computer for that matter.

The free market should always rule. Meddling by Congress to support prices is a disservice to everyone.