PDA

View Full Version : Senate Votes to Allow Arctic Drilling


Taco John
03-16-2005, 02:26 PM
Senate Votes to Open Alaskan Oil Drilling


Email this Story

Mar 16, 2:56 PM (ET)
WASHINGTON (AP) - Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush.

The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster - a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.

The action, assuming Congress agrees on a budget, clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year, drilling supporters said. The House has not included a similar provision in its budget, so the issue is still subject to negotiations later this year to resolve the difference.

The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil beneath the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northern eastern corner of Alaska.


(AP) In this undated photo provided by the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a herd of musk ox graze in...
Full Image


Drilling supporters acknowledged after the vote that for refuge development to get final approval Congress must still pass a final budget with the Senate provision included, something Congress was unable to do last year.

Still, "this is a big step," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who said he had tried for 24 years to open the refuge, but failed because Democrats blocked the effort through filibusters. The budget is immune from a filibuster, meaning drilling supporters will need only a majority - not the 60 votes required to break a filibuster - to succeed when the issue comes up for final action later this year.

Environmentalists have fought such development and argued that despite improved environmental controls a web of pipelines and drilling platforms would harm calving caribou, polar bears and millions of migratory birds that use the coastal plain.

Bush has called tapping the reserve's oil a critical part of the nation's energy security and a way to reduce America's reliance on imported oil, which account for more than half of the 20 million barrels of crude use daily.

It's "a way to get some additional reserves here at home on the books," Bush said Wednesday.

The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said. But they acknowledge that even if ANWR's oil is tapped, it would have no impact on soaring oil prices and tight supplies. The first lease sales would not be issued until 2007, followed by development seven to 10 years later, Interior Secretary Gale Norton said.

"We won't see this oil for 10 years. It will have minimal impact," argued Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., a co-sponsor of the amendment that would have stripped the arctic refuge provision from the budget document. It is "foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist," she said.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., argued that more oil would be saved if Congress enacted an energy policy focusing on conservation, more efficient cars and trucks and increased reliance on renewable fuels and expanded oil development in the deep-water Gulf where there are significant reserves.

"The fact is (drilling in ANWR) is going to be destructive," said Kerry.

But drilling proponents argued that modern drilling technology can safeguard the refuge and still tap the likely - though not yet certain - 10.4 billion barrels of crude in the refuge.

The vote Wednesday contrasted with the last time the Senate took up the ANWR drilling issue two years ago. Then, an attempt to include it in the budget was defeated. But drilling supporters gained strength last November when Republicans picked up three additional seats, all senators who favored drilling in the refuge.

Opponents of drilling complained that Republicans this time were trying "an end run" by attaching the refuge provisions to the budget, a tactic that would allow the measure to pass with a majority vote.

The 19-million-acre refuge was set aside for protection by President Eisenhower in 1960, but Congress in 1980 said its 1.5 million acre coastal plain could be opened to oil development if Congress specifically authorizes it.

The House has repeatedly passed measures over the years to allow drilling in ANWR only to see the legislation stalled in the Senate. But last week, the House refused to include an ANWR provision in its budget document, although any differences between the Senate and House versions would likely be resolved in negotiations.

Drilling supporters argued that access to the refuge's oil was a matter of national security and that modern drilling technology would protect the region's wildlife.

Environmentalists contended that while new technologies have reduced the drilling footprint, ANWR's coastal plain still would contain a spider web of pipelines that would disrupt calving caribou and disturb polar bears, musk oxen and the annual influx of millions of migratory birds.

Cochise
03-16-2005, 02:31 PM
kickace

Frazod
03-16-2005, 02:31 PM
Well it's about goddamn time.

bkkcoh
03-16-2005, 02:32 PM
Why did GM just destroy so many of the EV1 cars? How many of the cars did they end up selling? Does it remind anyone of the failure of the Edsel?

I am not against alternative fuels by any stretch of the imagination. Hybrid vehicles are gaining in popularity big time. But they also have thier drawbacks too.

Pitt Gorilla
03-16-2005, 02:34 PM
Biodiesel?

Kris Kringle
03-16-2005, 02:34 PM
Senate Votes to Open Alaskan Oil Drilling PBJPBJPBJPBJPBJPBJ

:bang::Peace:

KCTitus
03-16-2005, 02:35 PM
Oh no! The Alaskan Dung Muskrat might become extinct...

Kris Kringle
03-16-2005, 02:39 PM
1. This will help us take a much needed step toward reducing our dependance on Middle Eastern oil.

2. This may help bring down gas prices and improve the economy even more. I'd like to see gas back to $.99/gallon

bkkcoh
03-16-2005, 02:41 PM
1. This will help us take a much needed step toward reducing our dependance on Middle Eastern oil.

2. This may help bring down gas prices and improve the economy even more. I'd like to see gas back to $.99/gallon


if the government was so concerned about the price of gas, they would roll back the federal taxes for a period of time. Even if it was 20 cents a gallon, that is quite a bit in a short period of time....

Remember that fuel prices increasing, raises all prices (or almost all)...

Cochise
03-16-2005, 02:42 PM
Oh no! The Alaskan Dung Muskrat might become extinct...

I hope they don't have suckerfish up there :hmmm:

CosmicPal
03-16-2005, 02:42 PM
Bush has called tapping the reserve's oil a critical part of the nation's energy security and a way to reduce America's reliance on imported oil, which account for more than half of the 20 million barrels of crude use daily.



Bullsh*t! The oil is nothing more than a fuggen cash crop- nothing else.

Hoover
03-16-2005, 02:42 PM
Sweet!

jspchief
03-16-2005, 02:43 PM
I am not against alternative fuels by any stretch of the imagination. Hybrid vehicles are gaining in popularity big time. But they also have thier drawbacks too.

I could see hybrids being a bit more popular if they didn't insist on making them so damn ugly. Is there some rule that says if you care about the environment you must also have no taste or style?

bkkcoh
03-16-2005, 02:45 PM
I could see hybrids being a bit more popular if they didn't insist on making them so damn ugly. Is there some rule that says if you care about the environment you must also have no taste or style?
https://www5.forddirect.fordvehicles.com/vimg/234x105/05escapehybrid_dsgry.jpg

Here is the best of both worlds, an SUV and a hybrid...


http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/photos/2005_Honda_Accord_Hybrid.jpg

This vehicle is bad looking either...

<a href=" http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_sbs.shtml" target="_blank">Hybrid Comparison Link</a>

jspchief
03-16-2005, 02:45 PM
Bullsh*t! The oil is nothing more than a fuggen cash crop- nothing else.

Is this a joke?

Surely you understand the need for an alternative oil source goes way beyond money...

morphius
03-16-2005, 02:45 PM
2. This may help bring down gas prices and improve the economy even more. I'd like to see gas back to $.99/gallon

The way I see it, the gas companies well not allow that to happen. Heck, I remember back during the Clinton administration (not a slam on them as under Bush the prices have not gone down at all) that the gas companies had the prices high and said they had to do it. Of course even though they were struggeling because of the high costs they somehow showed record profits for a year.

Makes it kind of intresting everytime we hit 1.72 here the gas price jumps to a 1.89 within 4 days. Its like clockwork.

Saggysack
03-16-2005, 02:47 PM
It's about damn time. Buying it from Ahmed and his corrupt OPEC brothers sure isn't cutting it.

Calcountry
03-16-2005, 02:47 PM
All these wars for oil are getting tiring.

bkkcoh
03-16-2005, 02:50 PM
It's about damn time. Buying it from Ahmed and his corrupt OPEC brothers sure isn't cutting it.

Yeah, piss more people off, Haliburton and the bushies will be reaping the profits..... :Poke:

HC_Chief
03-16-2005, 02:50 PM
Well it's about goddamn time.

damn straight

I heard a governemnt big-wig (some undersecretary, or dept chief) on the radio a couple of days ago referring to some estimates of ANWAR production = 1million bpd. That's nearly equal to the amount we're purchasing from Saudi Arabia today (~1.2 mbpd).

Pitt Gorilla
03-16-2005, 02:54 PM
2. This may help bring down gas prices and improve the economy even more. I'd like to see gas back to $.99/gallonIn ten years...

Cochise
03-16-2005, 02:58 PM
damn straight

I heard a governemnt big-wig (some undersecretary, or dept chief) on the radio a couple of days ago referring to some estimates of ANWAR production = 1million bpd. That's nearly equal to the amount we're purchasing from Saudi Arabia today (~1.2 mbpd).

There hasn't been a survey done in a very long time. Whenever some in Congress want to do one to see how much there might be, it gets blocked by those who oppose, apparently they oppose no matter how much there might be up there.

ct
03-16-2005, 02:59 PM
Is this a joke?

Surely you understand the need for an alternative oil source goes way beyond money...

Only joke is on you.

1. This will help us take a much needed step toward reducing our dependance on Middle Eastern oil.


How about actually supporting existing technologies to mass produce energy w/out fossil fuels? Tax breaks and lip service ain't gonna make it happen, and neither will a Texan sheikh in the White House.

bkkcoh
03-16-2005, 03:00 PM
There hasn't been a survey done in a very long time. Whenever some in Congress want to do one to see how much there might be, it gets blocked by those who oppose, apparently they oppose no matter how much there might be up there.


Yeah, that was the case before when it was pretty much off limits. but now, it maybe a totally different story.

Taco John
03-16-2005, 03:00 PM
I'd have rather seen the investment made in developing a new fuel paradigm. But whatever. It's not the end of the world...

Brock
03-16-2005, 03:01 PM
Doesn't belong in this forum.

Fire Me Boy!
03-16-2005, 03:01 PM
As I always say... f*** the caribou.

Pitt Gorilla
03-16-2005, 03:02 PM
I'd have rather seen the investment made in developing a new fuel paradigm. But whatever. It's not the end of the world...Does that have a shot with this congress? I hope so.

HemiEd
03-16-2005, 03:03 PM
I could see hybrids being a bit more popular if they didn't insist on making them so damn ugly. Is there some rule that says if you care about the environment you must also have no taste or style?


My perception is that most of the people that want these things do not care. I have a daughter that could care less what the car looked like as long as her conscience was clean about the environment. They perceive a car as transportation, nothing else. I have to laugh every time I see someone driving one of these ugly suckers! I bet the design engineers are laughing as well. ROFL

bkkcoh
03-16-2005, 03:03 PM
I'd have rather seen the investment made in developing a new fuel paradigm. But whatever. It's not the end of the world...

But isn't it almost as important to not be as reliant on Middle east crude?

I am not sure how much crude is pumped in the US, but you don't hear of major environmental issues as a result of it. The transport of it is potentially more dangerous then the pumping of it. But the pipeline is already there, can it be tapped into to help the transport, or can it be made bigger, I am not sure...

morphius
03-16-2005, 03:03 PM
As I always say... f*** the caribou.
Whatever trips your trigger man, just next time, use your inner voice!

KingPriest2
03-16-2005, 03:05 PM
1. This will help us take a much needed step toward reducing our dependance on Middle Eastern oil.

2. This may help bring down gas prices and improve the economy even more. I'd like to see gas back to $.99/gallon


I remember paying 69 cents back in the mid 90s

jspchief
03-16-2005, 03:06 PM
Only joke is on you.



How about actually supporting existing technologies to mass produce energy w/out fossil fuels? Tax breaks and lip service ain't gonna make it happen, and neither will a Texan sheikh in the White House.

Yea. I'm sure now that we're drilling Alaska, all attempts to develop an alternative fuel source have been abandoned.:rolleyes:

Amnorix
03-16-2005, 03:09 PM
How has this thread avoided being bounced into DC?

Donger
03-16-2005, 03:09 PM
I remember paying 69 cents back in the mid 90s

No you don't. At least I hope you don't.

Bob Dole
03-16-2005, 03:10 PM
2. This may help bring down gas prices and improve the economy even more. I'd like to see gas back to $.99/gallon

Oh, come on...

Bob Dole really enjoyed that fill-up this morning at $2.19.

KingPriest2
03-16-2005, 03:11 PM
No you don't. At least I hope you don't.


Back when I was in college. I think it was in the fall of 94 The one and only time I filled up below 70 cents.

bkkcoh
03-16-2005, 03:11 PM
No you don't. At least I hope you don't.


I actually remember gas @ .29 a gallon before Carter was POTUS....

Cochise
03-16-2005, 03:11 PM
When hybrid vehicles don't look like the one posted above, and when they have comparable performance to a regular automobile, for a comparable price, I will be the first one in line.

Calcountry
03-16-2005, 03:14 PM
I remember paying 69 cents back in the mid 90sYeah, and I remember Hershey bars for 10 cents, Pinball games 3 for 25 cents(five ball games) and gas for 39 cents/Gallon.

Calcountry
03-16-2005, 03:15 PM
I actually remember gas @ .29 a gallon before Carter was POTUS....What was the minimum wage back then? $2.00??

HC_Chief
03-16-2005, 03:15 PM
When hybrid vehicles don't look like the one posted above, and when they have comparable performance to a regular automobile, for a comparable price, I will be the first one in line.

Honda's new hybrid looks like a regular Accord. :)

bkkcoh
03-16-2005, 03:16 PM
Honda's new hybrid looks like a regular Accord. :)

Same way with the Ford SUV.... it looks like a normal small SUV

Bootlegged
03-16-2005, 03:16 PM
Why does this matter? Didn't we just take over Iraq so we could have control of all the worlds oil? Sheesh.

bkkcoh
03-16-2005, 03:17 PM
What was the minimum wage back then? $2.00??


I don't know, I was only 5 - 7 years old.... Wasn't working at that point.

Calcountry
03-16-2005, 03:17 PM
Why does this matter? Didn't we just take over Iraq so we could have control of all the worlds oil? Sheesh.Funny how the value of the Oil in the Ground in Iraq is worth twice as much money now that we control it???

el borracho
03-16-2005, 03:23 PM
A potential 10.4 billion barrels of crude divided by 20 million barrels of crude per day (our current use) = not worth the risk to wildlife, IMO.

Bootlegged
03-16-2005, 03:24 PM
A potential 10.4 billion barrels of crude divided by 20 million barrels of crude per day (our current use) = not worth the risk to wildlife, IMO.


What wildlife?

Chiefnj
03-16-2005, 03:28 PM
They need to give incentives to companies to increase the refineries. Drilling in Alaska will have no effect on gas prices for several years.

Fire Me Boy!
03-16-2005, 03:28 PM
Whatever trips your trigger man, just next time, use your inner voice!
YOU'RE SICK! SICK SICK SICK!

Calcountry
03-16-2005, 03:28 PM
A potential 10.4 billion barrels of crude divided by 20 million barrels of crude per day (our current use) = not worth the risk to wildlife, IMO.Fug the goddm wildlife! I am all for hunting any of that chit that gets in the fuggin way of the equipment and selling the meat.

HC_Chief
03-16-2005, 03:30 PM
A potential 10.4 billion barrels of crude divided by 20 million barrels of crude per day (our current use) = not worth the risk to wildlife, IMO.

First of all, you're assuming we'd try to replace all import of oil with solely what we take from ANWAR. Second, you're assuming the 20mbpd is actual consumption when it's actually maximum estimated consumtion of every oil-using system if on and running 24hpd. Third, your 10.4bil estimate probably comes from the low-end of the spectrum... wouldn't surprise me when you say things like "not worth the risk to wildlife"... makes me assume you're a tree hugger. In that case, you'll grab for the lowest, most pessimistic estimate you can find because it props up your position.

At 1mbpd (our current import from our primary source is just over this number) it would take 1000 days (roughly 3 years) to equal 1 billion barrels consumed. Even with your lowball estimate, that's <i>30 years</i> of non-imported consumption.

Sounds like a good idea to me... even at the low end of the spectrum. And, funny enough, the majority of Alaskans want it to happen. Heh, imagine that. :D

el borracho
03-16-2005, 03:35 PM
First of all, you're assuming we'd try to replace all import of oil with solely what we take from ANWAR. Second, you're assuming the 20mbpd is actual consumption when it's actually maximum estimated consumtion of every oil-using system if on and running 24hpd. Third, your 10.4bil estimate probably comes from the low-end of the spectrum... wouldn't surprise me when you say things like "not worth the risk to wildlife"... makes me assume you're a tree hugger. In that case, you'll grab for the lowest, most pessimistic estimate you can find because it props up your position.

At 1mbpd (our current import from our primary source is just over this number) it would take 1000 days (roughly 3 years) to equal 1 billion barrels consumed. Even with your lowball estimate, that's <i>30 years</i> of non-imported consumption.

Sounds like a good idea to me... even at the low end of the spectrum. And, funny enough, the majority of Alaskans want it to happen. Heh, imagine that. :D
Both of the numbers I used were from the article in the thread starter- one is attributed to Bush.

tk13
03-16-2005, 03:37 PM
Personally, I want us to stop depending on foreign oil, but I'm highly skeptical this will ever have much of an effect on gas prices. A few years down the road we'll probably still be sitting here complaining how we need to find ways to make gas prices lower. Just a way for oil companies to make more money... like they really give a flying crap if prices are lower. Does anyone actually believe prices are going to go down? Color me skeptical.

KingPriest2
03-16-2005, 03:38 PM
Here is a little kept secret that noone talks about up in Alberta

The Alberta Sands

Boreal Forest, Lubicon Cree People Threatened
Oil Sands Mega-Project Hits Alberta

by Chris Genovali

One of the biggest oil development schemes in the history of North America is about to commence in northern Alberta.

An array of oil company consortia and corporate investors are planning to spend $25 billion over the next 20 years on mining the Alberta oil sands. The project is so large that Canada's largest oil company, Imperial, has abandoned conventional oil development to focus solely on the oil sands.

The shameless boosterism of the Alberta media, spurred on by a public relations onslaught by the oil industry has created a climate of near hysteria. If one is to believe the "Happy Days Are Here Again" hype coming out of Wild Rose Country, the miraculous oil sands are going to bring about everything from world peace to a cure for the common cold.

The oil industry demanded, and was given, major tax breaks and sweetheart royalties by the provincial and federal governments for oil sands development. Under a new royalty regime recently announced by the province, companies will pay a minuscule one percent on oil sands production.

The Alberta oil sands occupy a vast area in the boreal forest zone about the size of New Brunswick. Industry claims that by the year 2020, the oil sands will be producing as much as 1.2 million barrels a day, a significant amount of which will be exported to the U.S. market.

Not surprisingly, development of additional pipeline capacity to the U.S. is in the works. Alberta environmentalists have questioned the proposed "Express Pipeline," as the Alberta Energy Company plans to route it through native prairie grasslands, a highly threatened ecosystem supporting more than 100 endangered species. The Alberta Energy Company says the Express Pipeline is needed to provide an impetus for further oil sands development. After all, meeting projected export demand to the year 2000 will require the drilling of thousands more wells.

A report by conservation biologist Brian Horejsi of Western Wildlife Environments Consulting details the staggering scope of habitat fragmentation currently in Alberta from oil and gas development: over 225,000 wells have been drilled; 1.5 million kilometers of seismic road access and 500,000 kilometers of pipeline right-of-way have been cut; 750,000 kilometers of all-weather road access have been built; none of it subjected to environmental assessment.

Reserves at or near the surface are recovered through large-scale strip-mining. Huge mounds of oil sand are excavated and moved by trucks weighing 240 tons and standing three stories high. It takes two tons of sand to produce one barrel of oil.

Since opening its operation in 1978, one company, Syncrude, has excavated 1.5 billion tons of so-called overburden, the 20 meters deep layer of muskeg, gravel and shale that sit atop the actual oil sands—literally ripping the skin off the face of the earth. Syncrude has possibly created the largest surface mine in the world.

The deeper oil sands reserves are recovered by drilling horizontal wells and injecting massive amounts of steam deep into the ground—using nine barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil. Alberta environmentalists report that a Shell Canada oil sands plant has dried up one lake and has lowered the level of another lake so low that it froze solid, killing all the fish.

The above examples are just the tip of the iceberg compared to what's to come. Oil sands development produces four times more upstream greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil reserves. The oil sands are already the biggest single emitter in Alberta of sulphur dioxide, a component of acid rain and greenhouse gases.

Oil operations in Alberta and nearby parts of British Columbia constitute the second largest source of sulphur emissions in North America. A draft report by the province's environmental research center, disclosing the ongoing harm to domestic livestock from prolonged sulphur dioxide exposure, is being suppressed by the Alberta government because of oil industry pressure and fear of affecting beef exports.

Oil sands development will also be disastrous for indigenous peoples in the boreal forest, overlapping upon much of the 10,000-square-kilometer unceded traditional territory of the Lubicon Cree. The Lubicon are already struggling to preserve their boreal forest homeland from industrial forestry, conventional oil and gas development and the underhanded political machinations of a racist provincial government known as the "Nigeria of the North." In the mad rush to accelerate the mass exploitation of the oil sands, the potentially devastating impacts on the Lubicon Cree people and their traditional lands aren't even an afterthought

penchief
03-16-2005, 03:38 PM
Consumers will never see a benefit from this. Oil companies have had their way for some time now and while they continue to break records for making profit, consumers continue to pay higher prices.

All this does is indicate what republican priorities are. The right way to wean ourselves from dependence on foriegn oil is to be committed to developing alternatertive sources of fuel. Not the same old destructive ways of the status quo simply for the enrichment of those who have us by the balls.

They always say that it is the consumer who will pay if we don't give them what they want. Yet when they get their way nothing changes. We need to wean ourselves from our dependence on those who hold a gun to our head.

shaneo69
03-16-2005, 03:38 PM
Quote: "The oil industry has sought for more than two decades to get access to what is believed to be billions of barrels of oil beneath the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the northern eastern corner of Alaska.

But drilling proponents argued that modern drilling technology can safeguard the refuge and still tap the likely - though not yet certain - 10.4 billion barrels of crude in the refuge."


Wasn't it likely that there were weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq? Sure would suck if it happened again.

el borracho
03-16-2005, 03:39 PM
Both of the numbers I used were from the article in the thread starter- one is attributed to Bush.
No, after re-reading I see that the 20 million per day number is not attributed to Bush. I do see, however, that the 10.4 billion guestimate is a number put out by the proponents. I doubt the proponents would lowball their estimate but I guess it is possible. Maybe they are all tree-huggers...

HC_Chief
03-16-2005, 03:42 PM
Both of the numbers I used were from the article in the thread starter- one is attributed to Bush.

Roger that. AP numbers... gee, I wonder which side of the issue they're taking. (oops, forgot, the AP = the press... they don't take sides on issues) :D

If we really want to cut prices now, the best way to do it is repeal the ridiculous processing laws that were put in place in the 90s. And, repeal a portion of the plethora of fuel taxes. I've read estimates of 30-40% of fuel cost at the pump today = tax. That's ridiculous!

Bwana
03-16-2005, 03:43 PM
SWEET!!

Saggysack
03-16-2005, 03:47 PM
Yeah, piss more people off, Haliburton and the bushies will be reaping the profits..... :Poke:

Oh well. IMO it would be better to pay Halliburton with a majority of american workers doing the task than Ahmed and his ever faithful cousins recieving the profits.

KingPriest2
03-16-2005, 03:48 PM
MOre on Alberta and it is going to blow you out of the water.

From the USA Today

Canada drips with oil, but it's tough to get at
By James Cox, USA TODAY
FORT McMURRAY, Alberta — Any serious effort to ease America's addiction to Middle East oil starts near this Alberta boomtown cut out of Canada's great boreal forest.
By conservative estimates, the underground deposits around Fort McMurray hold 1.6 trillion — with a "t" — barrels of oil, making them the largest lode of hydrocarbons on Earth. Up to 330 billion barrels of the crude here in Canada's oil sands region are recoverable, geologists say. Saudi Arabia, by contrast, possesses 262 billion barrels of proven reserves.
With oil prices bounding to nearly $50 a barrel this summer, both the Bush and Kerry campaigns have been talking up the Canadian option. Both extol a U.S. energy policy that draws more supply from friendly, familiar Canada and less from the volatile Middle East.

Despite the region's promise, not even the most giddy Canadian oil executive is ready to declare that the sands will break the USA's reliance on Middle East supplies anytime soon. Since 1967, the industry has spent $21 billion opening mines, drilling wells and constructing processing plants in the oil sands. Over the next decade, nearly two dozen companies plan to spend $24 billion more to expand existing operations or open new ones. Fresh investment could rise to as much as $40 billion by 2025, an amount equivalent to the combined spending of American companies in China over the past 25 years.

Yet even with all the money flowing in, oil from the sands "helps you on the margins. That's about it," says Allan Markin, chairman of Canadian Natural Resources, which is spending $6.4 billion on a project at the northern edge of the sands region.

Current production in the sands is about 1 million barrels a day, about half of which goes to the USA by pipeline. Production is forecast to rise to 2 million barrels a day by 2010 and 3 million a day by 2015. But the USA now guzzles more than 20 million barrels a day, about 60% of which is imported. Daily U.S. demand is projected to climb to 23 million barrels by 2010, even as domestic production falls.
Obstacles to development

So why not squeeze more from the oil sands? Tantalizing as the region is, it poses any number of obstacles. Technological, financial and environmental hurdles stand in the way of more aggressive exploitation.

Geologists joke that drawing a barrel of oil from the Saudi desert is as easy as poking a straw in the ground. The Saudis pump oil at a cost to them of $2 to $3 a barrel and comfortably make money even if global futures prices crash to $10 a barrel.
Not so in the molasses-like sands of Alberta. Here, costs range from $8.50 to $12 a barrel, and getting that barrel requires substantial manpower, technology and energy. After adding capital costs, shipping and depreciation, sands producers need per-barrel global prices above the $18-to-$23 level.
About 20% of the oil sands deposits can be surface mined. At its Steepbank and Millennium mines 20 miles north of Fort McMurray, Suncor uses bulldozers to scrape off the top layer of soil, silt, clay and rock. Three-story-high shovels gouge out buckets of oil sand and load them on gigantic trucks that can handle up to 400 tons apiece. The trucks, as big as generous suburban homes, shuttle 24 hours a day from the shovels to crushers, where they dump their loads. The rule of thumb is that two tons of sand yield one barrel of oil.

Eighty percent of the crude locked in the sands is too deep to surface mine.
So most new investment is aimed at extracting it by drilling wells to inject steam at high pressure, which separates and thins the tar-like bitumen so it can be pulled to the surface. It's a method that requires large quantities of water and natural gas.

In both cases, getting the bitumen is only the start. While it looks like thick oil, bitumen has a more complex molecular structure. It contains too much carbon and too little hydrogen, and must go through a costly upgrading process. The end product is so-called synthetic oil that can be moved through pipelines and refined into gasoline and other products.

The sands process is difficult and costly enough that industry reserve estimates vary wildly on Canada. Several authoritative guides refuse to include any oil from the sands in the country's reserve total. Others pare the recoverable figure from 300 billion barrels or more to 180 billion barrels or less.

A freak of geology

The region is a freak geologic formation created by the remnants of marine life left behind by an ancient inland sea that once covered much of Alberta. Venezuela has a similar oil sands region.

In 1719, a Cree Indian presented a sample of bitumen to a white explorer with the Hudson Bay Company. But for the longest time, the tar-like goo that pooled along the banks of the Athabasca River didn't seem good for much. The Cree and Chipewyan used it to fill smudge pots and ward off mosquitoes, or warmed it into a gum to waterproof their birch bark canoes. But the engineers and fortune seekers who played with it — boiling, spinning and treating it with chemicals — succeeded mostly in blowing themselves up or going bankrupt, or both.

That changed in 1967 when Suncor began extracting the first commercially viable oil from the sands. Still, it wasn't until the early 1990s that early pioneers Suncor and Syncrude developed the technology that enabled them to make steady returns capturing, processing and shipping sands oil. Even then, they saw their costs spiral out of control: Syncrude's $3.5 billion three-stage project ultimately cost $7 billion.

Today, projects "are being built as fast as they can," says Randy Ollenberger, energy analyst at BMO Nesbitt Burns in Calgary.

Costs remain a huge concern. Fort McMurray is crisp and beautiful this time of year, but remote, harsh and unforgiving much of the rest of the calendar. Temperatures plunge to 40 degrees below zero. And many oil leases in the northern sands areas are beyond the reach of paved roads, some accessible by "winter" roads over tundra, some only by helicopter.

At the northern edge of the Athabasca region, Canadian Natural Resources has scrapped the idea of trying to hire scarce pipe fitters, welders and carpenters locally or even import them from other parts of Canada. Instead, it wants to build an airport at its plant site, flying workers into job camps on 200-seat 737s. Much of the labor could come from Venezuela, Turkey, India, China, the Philippines, Hungary and South Africa, the company says.

Environmental concerns

Sands developers are under pressure to find ways to use less water and natural gas. They also are encouraged by the federal government in Ottawa to hire more workers from local tribes — referred to by Canadians as First Nations — and to buy more supplies from tribal businesses.

In addition, the oil companies work under strict environmental guidelines requiring that they run relatively eco-friendly operations and reclaim land as they finish mining. At its mine sites, Suncor has planted 3 million trees and built greenways to accommodate the bears, wolves, moose, caribous, deer and beavers. The company periodically fires off explosive charges at collection ponds to keep birds from drinking or nesting there.

One concern is that the Kyoto Protocol agreement, intended to lower global greenhouse-gas emissions, could hamper new development in the sands. "The question they have about Kyoto is, where does it end? Kyoto in and of itself isn't a big deal. It might mean another 25 cents a barrel in operating costs. But these investments are made on 40-year assumptions, vs. the standard industry investment horizon of three to five years. What does the offspring of Kyoto look like?" Ollenberger says.

Labor shortages and high costs are evident in Fort McMurray, a distant 18th-century trading post that has become a bustling town of 58,000. Thirty years ago, rough saloons like the Oil Can and the Peter Pond Pub drew far-from-home Newfoundlanders, who came to work in the sands and never left. Today, housing is in short supply, and median prices for single-family homes are close to $240,000, among the country's highest. Fast-food outlets such as Canada's ubiquitous coffee-and-doughnuts chain Tim Hortons have had trouble attracting and keeping workers.

Despite high costs and other problems, oil from the sands comes with little political risk. No Arab oil sheiks, no guerrilla insurgencies, no Russian autocrats, no African strongmen, no bribe-seeking bureaucrats.

"It's one of the few sources that's not in a ridiculously problematic zone," says Seth Kleinman, an energy markets specialist at PFC Energy, a Washington consulting firm.

The sands also have a different lifespan and payout than traditional oil wells. Sands companies expect a 15% to 18% annual return on projects that have a life of 35 to 40 years. A typical oil well delivers two or three times the returns, but production and returns peak in three years and drop sharply.

Suncor CEO Rick George says there's enough promising technology on the way to solve some of the environmental problems and lower costs. Natural gas use, for instance, will drop if companies can fuel their operations with the petroleum coke that is a byproduct of the bitumen-upgrading process. He's optimistic that total sands production can get to 5 million barrels a day in 15 years.

Oil prices haven't been above $40 a barrel long enough for Canadian sands companies to consider accelerating their expansion plans.

"They tend to be reasonably conservative players investing in long-term strategic projects" involving new technology, says Scott Mitchell, lead analyst for North America at Wood Mackenzie, an energy consultancy in Edinburgh, Scotland. "A lot of these companies are still feeling their way."

Whether they speed up or not, it's folly to view the sands as some kind of magic bullet that will eliminate America's dependence on OPEC and the Middle East, says Mike Rodgers, senior director at PFC Energy.

"You hear a lot of talk about gaining independence from Middle East oil," Rodgers says. "That can't happen as long as demand keeps growing. The only way to truly gain independence from Middle East oil is for us to do something about demand growth and develop other energy sources."

ChiefsCountry
03-16-2005, 03:51 PM
About freaking time.

KC Kings
03-16-2005, 03:55 PM
1. This will help us take a much needed step toward reducing our dependance on Middle Eastern oil.

2. This may help bring down gas prices and improve the economy even more. I'd like to see gas back to $.99/gallon

Do you think the the US government is going to drill the oil and give it away to all the loyal taxpayers? They are going to lease the land to big companies, and the big companies are going to sell the oil for the going price.

I am not against harming wildlife there it an equal benefit for mankind, and I do not have the knowledge to give an educated oppinion on the ecological effects of drilling, but to think gas prices are going to drop 50% because an extra 1/20th of the worlds daily oil supply will be provided by the US in 2015 doesn't seem very logical.

If we took the $$$ that will be spent on this oil drilling and used it for research and developement on alternative fuel sources, could we not reduce the daily oil usage 1 percent a year? That would cut back our dependency on foriegn fuel the same percentage, would not harm the environment, and would actually be better for the environment in regards to the greenhouse effect.

KingPriest2
03-16-2005, 03:59 PM
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/opecrev.html

OPEC Revenues Fact Sheet
The following provides information on OPEC oil export revenues. OPEC countries include: Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela . This report is based on the best available information as of January 2005 and can change. Please note that for the purposes of this report, the EIA's Short-Term Energy Outlook "reference case" is utilized. Low or high oil price cases would have resulted in, respectively, lower or higher OPEC oil export revenue forecasts -- possibly by about 10% in either direction.)

HIGHLIGHTS

Assuming the U.S. Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) January 2005 "reference case" forecast for world oil prices and production, OPEC net oil export revenues for 2005 are projected to be $345 billion (see table), a 2% increase from 2004 revenues of $338 billion, and a 42% increase from 2003 revenues of $243 billion.
For 2006, OPEC net oil export revenues are expected to remain roughly flat (up 1%, to $349 billion) compared to 2005.

The growth in OPEC oil export revenues compared to 2003 levels results mainly from big increases in crude oil prices combined with significant growth in OPEC net oil exports. Higher oil prices come as world spare oil production capacity hovers near historic lows and as world oil demand continues to grow strongly. As of January 2005, some of the trends seen in 2003 and 2004 are continuing: 1) instability and attacks on oil infrastructure in Iraq; 2) troubles in Nigeria, resulting in a frequent loss of oil production in that country; and 3) terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
Although OPEC oil export revenues over the past three years have been significantly higher than during the oil price collapse of 1998/99, they remain, in inflation-adjusted, per capita terms, far below peaks reached in the late 1970s/early 1980s. For OPEC as a whole, per capita oil export revenues are projected at $606 in 2005, or only about 34% the $1,771 in real (constant $2004) per capita oil export revenues achieved in 1980. This continues to have significant implications for OPEC oil price preferences and policies.

Iraq earned an estimated $20.0 billion in oil export revenues during 2004, more than double the $9.8 billion earned in 2003. By 2006, Iraq's oil export earnings are expected to approach $25 billion as net oil exports approach 2 million bbl/d, up from 1.6 million bbl/d in 2004. Forecasts for Iraqi oil export revenues are complicated by high levels of uncertainty regarding future Iraqi oil exports, as well as continuing attacks on oil infrastructure.
Saudi oil export revenues increased sharply (35%) in 2004 compared to 2003, but are projected to level off during 2005 and 2006. For much of 2003 and 2004, Saudi Arabia benefited both from higher world oil prices as well as from its ability to increase production and exports sharply and rapidly due to the country's large spare production capacity. As a result, Saudi Arabia was able to replace some of the lost production from Venezuela, Iraq, and Nigeria and to reap higher revenues as a consequence. Saudi spare production capacity is now down to around 1.0-1.5 million bbl/d, however, leaving little room for increased Saudi production if needed.
Saudi Arabia maintains the highest share of OPEC oil export revenues (at 34% of the OPEC total in 2004). By 2006, Saudi Arabia's share of OPEC oil export revenues is expected to fall to 32%, as Iraq's share increases to 7% (from 6% in 2004).
OVERVIEW
OPEC net oil export revenues for 2004 (see table) are now estimated at around $338 billion, up 39% from 2003 levels. For 2005 and 2006, OPEC net oil export revenues are forecast at $345 billion and $349 billion, respectively. Several major world events during 2004 affected world oil markets and contributed to the spike in OPEC oil export revenues. These included: 1) low U.S. crude oil inventories held in commercial storage, particularly during the early months of the year; 2) uncertainty about the flow of Iraqi oil exports in the face of the high level of turmoil within that country; 3) damage inflicted on U.S. Gulf Coast and offshore oil installations following hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Ivan; 4) an unexpectedly strong surge in world oil demand, particularly in China; and 5) capacity constraints (upstream, downstream, and transportation). In addition, Venezuelan political instability, Nigerian labor strikes, and internal strife between the Russian government and oil giant Yukos also contributed to push crude oil and other petroleum prices higher in 2004.

OPEC net oil export revenues in real (inflation adjusted) terms are currently running about double the average annual revenues seen during the 1990s, but remain well below the peaks reached in 1980 and 1981. The boom-bust cycle of oil revenues seen over the past 30 years (the 1973 and 1979 oil price shocks; the 1985/86 oil price collapse; the 1990/91 Iraq crisis and oil price spike; the 1997/98 Asian economic crisis and oil price collapse; the current uncertainty regarding terrorist threats, Middle East instability, surging oil demand, etc.), makes long-term budgetary planning a challenge in many OPEC countries, and also complicates efforts to deal with balance of payments deficits, accumulated debt, budget problems, economic reform and rapid population growth.

OPEC Net Oil Export Revenues at a Glance
Nominal Dollars (Billions) Constant $2004 (Billions)
Change 2004/2003
2004E
2005F
2006F 1972E
1980E
1998E
2005F
2006F
Algeria 32% $22.6 $25.3 $25.1 $4.8 $25.6 $6.3 $24.8 $24.2
Indonesia -111% -$0.2 -$1.3 -$1.6 $3.2 $29.6 $3.5 -$1.3 -$1.5
Iran 36% $32.5 $32.3 $32.0 $14.9 $26.1 $11.7 $31.7 $30.8
Iraq 105% $20.0 $21.3 $24.8 $5.2 $53.8 $7.5 $20.9 $23.9
Kuwait 40% $27.4 $28.0 $30.0 $10.0 $37.3 $8.9 $27.5 $28.9
Libya 38% $18.1 $19.4 $19.6 $10.6 $44.3 $6.6 $19.0 $18.9
Nigeria 46% $29.8 $30.6 $32.1 $7.5 $47.5 $9.8 $30.1 $30.9
Qatar 43% $13.5 $13.8 $13.6 $1.6 $10.7 $3.8 $13.5 $13.1
Saudi Arabia 35% $115.1 $113.8 $111.0 $16.8 $207.8 $39.0 $111.7 $107.0
UAE 32% $30.3 $31.3 $32.4 $3.8 $37.5 $10.7 $30.7 $31.2
Venezuela 47% $29.1 $30.3 $29.8 $11.0 $36.2 $13.2 $29.7 $28.7
TOTAL 39% $338.4 $344.7 $348.9 $89.5 $556.2 $120.9 $338.4 $336.3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since their collapse to under $10 per barrel in December 1998, the lowest oil price since prior to the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, oil prices have rebounded strongly. The OPEC "basket" price (a weighted average of Algeria's Saharan Blend, Indonesia's Minas, Nigeria's Bonny Light, Saudi Arabia's Arabian Light, Dubai's Fateh, Venezuela's Tia Juana, and Mexico's Isthmus), for instance, averaged about $36 per barrel during 2004, nearly triple its 1998 level. For 2005 and 2006, the OPEC basket is forecast to average just over $36 per barrel. (Note: OPEC reportedly is considering changes to the composition of the basket.)

World oil price spikes and crashes are, in many respects, cyclical, as they affect oil supply and demand. For example, the oil price collapse of 1998 led to a large number of well closures (as well as a reduction in oil exploration and production) in non-OPEC countries, including the United States, where thousands of so-called "stripper" wells were shut down in Oklahoma and Texas. The price collapse also tended to stimulate world oil demand. Higher oil prices since 1999, on the other hand, have tended to encourage an upsurge in oil sector drilling activity and a reduction in oil demand growth.

All else being equal, increased oil prices tend to result in improvements in OPEC countries' economic situations, budgets, and trade balances. Higher oil export revenues also tend to lessen pressures for economic reforms, and make it easier for OPEC countries to increase their spending. However, the impact of higher oil prices is tempered by memories of past price collapses (i.e., 1998), as well as a general understanding that oil prices can be highly volatile. Still, there is little doubt that pressures to make difficult political choices (like cutting popular state subsidies for food and fuel) tend to be lower during relatively prosperous times than in more difficult ones.

Rapidly fluctuating oil export revenues over the past few years also have affected non-OPEC countries, such as Russia and Mexico, significantly. The economic situation in Russia, for instance, improved significantly (with positive economic growth since 1999, following a sharp downturn in 1998), in part as a result of a rebound in the country's oil and gas export revenues since 1998. Russia earned an estimated $86 billion in net oil export revenues during 2004, up from just $38 billion in 2001. Russian inflation-adjusted net oil export revenues in 2005 are projected to be the highest since 1990, prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union.

In real terms (constant $2004), OPEC revenues peaked in 1980, at $556 billion (see graph). OPEC's worst revenue year in constant dollar terms since the early 1970s ($90 billion in 1972) was 1998, when revenues fell to only $120 billion, slightly below the previous low revenue year of 1988 ($121 billion in earnings), following the oil price collapse of late 1985/early 1986. For the 1990s as a whole (1991-2000), OPEC net oil export revenues (in constant $2004) were $1.7 trillion, compared to $2.3 trillion in the 1980s, and $3.0 trillion in the 1970s. Thus, total OPEC oil export revenues in real terms during the 1990s were less than 60% of revenues in the 1970s. So far, OPEC oil export revenues (in constant $2004) for 2001-2004 are averaging $247 billion per year, about 47% above the annual average during the 1990s.

Individual OPEC members' shares of total oil export revenues have fluctuated over the past three decades, but several trends are apparent (see graph). First, Saudi Arabia consistently has earned more oil export revenues than any other single member of OPEC, with the Saudi share ranging from below around 16% in 1971 to as high as 46% in 1981, and 34% in 2004. Second, Iran's revenue share fell after the 1978/79 Iranian Revolution (followed soon thereafter by the Iran-Iraq War for much of the 1980s), and has not recovered since. Today, Iran accounts for about 10% of total OPEC net oil export revenues, down from 17%-19% in the 1970s. Third, Iraq's oil export revenue share has fluctuated sharply, from a high of around 14% in the late 1980s, to basically 0% for several years following its August 1990 invasion of Kuwait (and the subsequent U.N. oil embargo, which continued until May 2003). Iraqi oil export revenues increased since late 1996 under the U.N. "oil-for-food" deal, which permitted Iraqi oil exports to buy food and medicine, for war reparations, and for other U.N.-authorized purposes. For 2004, Iraq's share of total OPEC oil revenues was about 6%, with the share expected to reach 7% in 2006.

In inflation adjusted terms, OPEC per capita oil export revenues are far below the peaks reached in the late 1970s/early 1980s. For OPEC as a whole, per capita oil export revenues (in constant $2004) are estimated to have reached $617 in 2004, up 36% from 2003, but just one-third the $1,771 per capita revenues achieved in 1980. The decline in per capita oil export revenues has significant implications for OPEC oil price preferences and policies, especially combined with the fact that OPEC countries' populations are growing rapidly, and that many OPEC countries, despite their seeming oil wealth, are heavily indebted (in part as a result of low oil prices for most of the period from the mid 1980s through the late 1990s, combined with economic mismanagement, war, corruption, etc.).


As with OPEC oil producers, major non-OPEC producers also are affected by fluctuating world oil prices. Russian oil export revenues, for instance, surged sharply after reaching a low point in 1998. This was the result of increases both in oil prices as well as production. Russian net oil export revenues surged by 52% in 2004 over 2003, to $90 billion (in constant $2004). Russia's oil export revenues for 2005, at $89 billion (in constant $2004), are projected to be more than five times greater than their low point in 1998.

According to statistics from EIA's Monthly Energy Review, the oil price collapse of late 1997 and 1998 cut U.S. net oil import costs during 1998 by around $20 billion (to $44 billion) compared to the previous two years. Increased oil prices since then have increased U.S. net oil import costs: to $60 billion in 1999; $109 billion in 2000; $94 billion in both 2001 and 2002, and $122 billion during 2003. For the first ten months of 2004, U.S. net oil import costs were running about 31% higher than during the same period in 2003. Oil currently accounts for about one-fourth of the total U.S. merchandise trade deficit.

Calcountry
03-16-2005, 04:00 PM
Do you think the the US government is going to drill the oil and give it away to all the loyal taxpayers? They are going to lease the land to big companies, and the big companies are going to sell the oil for the going price.

Nor should they. Look how they screwed up the post office.

I am all for depleting the cheapest most abundant form of energy first as is dictated by market conditions.

The only way that conservation, and technoligical change is ever gonna happen is if it is market viable, in other words, the greedy oil companies will diversify into it as fast as they can if there is no more oil to cheaply produce. Therefore, bring on the oil, all of it.

KingPriest2
03-16-2005, 04:02 PM
Major Non-OPEC Countries Oil Revenues

Oil prices fell sharply after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but rebounded in early 2002 and 2003. In 2004, prices increased sharply in the face of limited OPEC spare production capacity and rapid world oil demand growth. Fluctuating oil prices (and revenues) can have a significant impact on non-OPEC oil exporting countries, such as Mexico, Norway, Russia, and others.

For Mexico, higher oil prices have a generally, but not completely, positive impact on the country's overall economy. One mitigating factor is that oil export revenues make up less than a tenth of Mexico's total exports, down from more than 70% two decades ago. Increased oil prices also tend to hurt Mexico's main customer for its non-oil exports, the United States, which in recent years have represented a rapidly growing sector of Mexico's economy. Finally, higher oil prices tend to increase inflationary pressures and interest rates in Mexico, while reducing pressures for important economic reforms. On the other hand, despite the fact that Mexican oil export revenues make up only about 7% of total export revenues, they account for around one-third of government income, meaning that the oil sector plays a major (even disproportionate) role in Mexican economic policy.

For 2004, EIA estimates Mexican oil export revenues of about $21 billion, up 30% from 2003, on net oil exports of 1.8 million bbl/d and an average price for Mexican oil -- mainly heavy Maya crude -- of nearly $31 per barrel. For 2005 and 2006, Mexico's oil export revenues are expected to stay roughly flat. Mexico's main crude export grade is heavy sour Maya, which is of relatively low quality and therefore fetches a relatively low price on world markets. The other main Mexican export crude is light Isthmus, which sells for around $5-$10 per barrel more than Maya.

Mexico's economy is expected to grow at a 3.9% rate in 2004, about the same as the 4.1% growth experienced in 2003. In general, Mexico's economy appears to be recovering slowly from a recession which began in 2001. Mexico's 2005 budget assumes a price for Mexican oil of $27 per barrel, compared to $20 per barrel in the 2004 budget. The assumption for 2004 was around $12 per barrel below the actual estimated price for Mexican oil in that year, resulting in a significant budget surplus. Under Mexican law, oil revenues earned above budgetary assumptions go to fund infrastructure projects in the states, with the rest going to pay down government debt and also back to Pemex, the state oil company. Overall, Pemex sends about 60% of its income to the federal government in royalties and taxes, and is faced with a huge debt burden (over $40 billion) despite its high revenues. Among other things, this means that Pemex does not have a great deal of money to invest in oil exploration. To date, however, Mexico has been unwilling to open the oil sector to private (including foreign) investment.

Russia depends upon energy (mainly oil and natural gas) exports for critical shares of its total export earnings (around 50% in 2003) and government revenues. Oil export revenues also are used to help pay off Russia's large (around $113 billion as of October 2004) foreign debt. Thus, oil price fluctuations are of definite concern to Russia. The sharp rebound in oil prices over the past few years has been good news overall for Russia -- and especially its oil sector -- after an extremely difficult 1998 and early 1999. During 2000-2004, for instance, Russia's top oil producers made windfall profits, resulting in billions of dollars worth of additional tax revenues to the Russian government. Many Russian oil companies also have begun to upgrade decaying oil infrastructure and to undertake new exploratory drilling. EIA is forecasting Russian oil export revenues at $90 billion for 2005, up 1% from 2004 (which marked the highest revenues in "real" terms since 1990), on higher oil prices and net oil exports.

In addition to oil prices, Russian oil production has rebounded over the past few years. In 2004, Russia produced around 9.3 million bbl/d of oil, up over 50%, from 6.1 million bbl/d, in 1998. For 2005, Russian oil production is espected to average about 9.5 million bbl/d, with consumption of 2.6 million bbl/d and net exports of 6.9 million bbl/d.

Buoyed by surging oil export revenues, Russia's real gross domestic product (GDP) grew 10% in 2000, with slower (but still strong) growth in 2001 (5.1%), in 2002 (4.7%), and in 2003 (7.3%). Russia's real GDP grew strongly again in 2004, at a 6.9% rate, with greater than 5% annual growth expected during 2005 and 2006. The oil export revenue windfall experienced by Russia since 2000 has helped the Russian government pay down some of its large foreign debt and to run significant budget and trade surpluses, with an estimated $88 billion merchandise trade surplus and a $56 billion current account surplus in 2004. In addition, Russia's foreign exchange and gold reserves totaled around $117 billion at the end of November 2004. Given this positive fiscal situation, Moody's rating agency upgraded Russia's credit rating in October 2003 to "investment grade" for the first time ever.

On a related note, the Russian government recently has been attempting to capture more of the country's oil revenues from oil companies, in part by raising their taxes and in part by cracking down on their use of tax "loopholes." It is estimated that Russian oil and natural gas revenues provide at least 40% of the national government's budget (and over half of export earnings), mainly through taxes on hydrocarbon production and duties on exported crude and products. In the long term, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and others have warned that Russia remains overly dependent on hydrocarbons, recommending that Russia push ahead with economic reform and diversification.

For 2005, Russia reportedly is assuming (for budgetary purposes) an average oil price of around $20-$21 per barrel for the country's benchmark Urals crude stream, well below EIA's forecast of around $36 per barrel for Russian crude. Plans are for extra revenues above the assumed budget price to be transferred to the country's Stabilization Fund, which was expected to reach $19 billion by the end of 2004 (and $30 billion by the end of 2005). In general, President Putin has stated that windfall oil revenues should be spent on paying off foreign debt ($114 billion as of December 2004) as opposed to financing new pipeline projects.

Since 1999, Norway has experienced strong oil export revenues, raising concerns over possible economic overstimulation and also over how to allocate the money. In November 2003, Norway's government and opposition agreed on a budget for 2004, including some increases in spending (on health, education, and other social services, for instance) and $7 billion in transfers from the country's nearly 15-year-old Petroleum Fund (which stood at more than $150 billion as of September 2004). The strength in oil revenues had raised concerns of an overheated Norwegian economy, including increased inflationary pressures, but Norway's economy grew by only 1.1% in 2002, 0.4% in 2003, and 2.9% in 2004. As a result, Norway's central bank has cut interest rates ten times since December 2002, from 7.0% down to 1.75% currently. Meanwhile, there have been increasing calls to tap into Norway's oil revenue windfall for various purposes, including lower taxes, increased social spending, and reductions in the country's budget deficit. Norway's budget for 2005 calls for cutting income taxes while raising consumption taxes. For 2004, EIA estimates that Norwegian oil export revenues reached $38 billion, 19% higher than in 2003, and more than twice as high as in 1998. For 2005 and 2006, Norway's net oil export revenues are forecast at $38 billion and $37 billion, respectively.

Egypt's economy was hurt following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, with lower oil export revenues (as prices fell) and reduced tourist revenues hurting the country's GDP growth. Since then, Egypt's economy has grown slowly, in part due to regional tensions and a world economic slowdown, with real GDP growth of only 3.2% in 2002, 3.1% in 2003, and 3.6% in 2004. For 2005 and 2006, Egypt's real GDP growth is expected to pick up somewhat, reaching 4.2% and 4.8%, respectively. Besides oil exports, tourism, foreign aid, and revenues from the Suez Canal, the other major source of income to Egyptians is so-called "remittances" from Egyptian workers in oil-rich Persian Gulf states. Increased oil prices tend to help remittances. For 2004, Egypt is estimated to have earned oil export revenues of about $1.7 billion, down sharply from the $3.3 billion earned in 1996, mainly on declining oil production and net oil exports. Over the next two years, Egypt's oil export revenues are expected to decline by 18%, reaching just $1.4 billion in 2006, on lower net oil exports.

Low oil prices between late 1997 and early 1999 adversely affected the United States oil industry, with U.S. crude oil production falling more than 500,000 bbl/d from the fourth quarter of 1997 through the first quarter of 1999. In large part, this decline was due to shut-ins at small, so-called "marginal" wells (i.e., wells producing 15 bbl/d or less) in places like Oklahoma and Texas. In addition, oil (and gas) investment fell. Since 1999, higher oil prices helped slow the decline in U.S. domestic crude oil production. However, U.S. crude output still fell, from 5.88 million bbl/d in 1999 to 5.68 million bbl/d in 2003. For the first 11 months of 2004, U.S. crude oil production fell by about 250,000 bbl/d, to 5.43 million bbl/d, in large part due to Hurricane Ivan in mid-September.

Fluctuating oil prices affect the cost of U.S. oil imports and the U.S. trade balance. In 1998, the United States imported (gross) around $44 billion worth of oil. This increased to $60 billion in 1999 and $109 billion in 2000. For 2001 and 2002, U.S. oil imports were somewhat lower, at around $94 billion each year, before increasing again to around $122 billion in 2003 (and around $135 billion for the first ten months of 2004). In general, higher oil prices have a negative macroeconomic impact on the United States, including increased inflationary pressures and a deterioration in the merchandise trade balance. A "rule of thumb" used by the Energy Information Administration estimates that a sustained 10% increase in the price of oil could lower the real U.S. GDP growth rate by between 0.05 and 0.1 percentage points relative to its baseline level over a year.

Major Non-OPEC Countries: Net Oil Export Revenues at a Glance
Nominal Dollars (Billions) Constant $2004 (Billions)
Change 2004/2003
2004E
2005F
2006F
1980E
1998E
2003E
2005F
2006F

Angola 43% $12.4 $14.9 $17.9 $2.8 $3.4 $8.8 $14.6 $17.3
Colombia 19% $3.6 $2.8 $2.5 -$0.5 $2.3 $3.1 $2.7 $2.4
Egypt 3% $1.7 $1.6 $1.4 $6.9 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.3
Mexico 30% $21.4 $21.5 $21.4 $20.6 $6.1 $16.6 $21.1 $20.7
Norway 19% $37.7 $38.4 $37.1 $9.3 $15.1 $32.1 $37.7 $35.8
Oman 28% $9.2 $9.1 $9.2 $6.3 $4.2 $7.2 $8.9 $8.9
Russia 53% $89.6 $90.3 $91.2 $268.0 $17.0 $59.1 $88.6 $87.9
Sudan 63% $3.0 $3.8 $4.9 -$0.4 -$0.1 $1.8 $3.8 $4.7
Syria 12% $2.9 $2.6 $2.7 $1.3 $1.4 $2.6 $2.6 $2.6
United Kingdom -61% $2.8 $1.9 -$0.1 -$0.4 $5.7 $7.1 $1.9 -$0.1


Return to OPEC Revenues Fact Sheet

KingPriest2
03-16-2005, 04:07 PM
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html

Non-OPEC Fact Sheet

Top World Oil Producers, 2003*
(OPEC members in italics)
Country Total Oil Production**
(million barrels per day)
1) Saudi Arabia 9.95
2) United States 8.84
3) Russia 8.44
4) Iran 3.87
5) Mexico 3.79
6) China 3.54
7) Norway 3.27
8) Canada 3.11
9) United Arab Emirates 2.66
10) Venezuela 2.58
11) United Kingdom 2.39
12) Kuwait 2.32
13) Nigeria 2.25
*Table includes all countries total oil production exceeding 2 million barrels per day in 2002.
**Total Oil Production iincludes crude oil, natural gas liquids, condensate, refinery gain, and other liquids
Top World Oil Net Exporters, 2003*
(OPEC members in italics)
Country Net Oil Exports
(million barrels per day)
1) Saudi Arabia 8.38
2) Russia 5.81
3) Norway 3.02
4) Iran 2.48
5) United Arab Emirates 2.29
6) Venezuela 2.23
7) Kuwait 2.00
8) Nigeria 1.93
9) Mexico 1.74
10) Algeria 1.64
11) Libya 1.25
*Table includes all countries with net exports exceeding 1 million barrels per day in 2002.

Simplex3
03-16-2005, 04:50 PM
To everyone with "Greedy f**king oil companies and damn Bush" comments:

You are aware that you can buy stock in that "obscenely profitable" company, which would then, in turn, make you money, right?

Of course that's assuming your "obscenely profitable" stance is correct...

Calcountry
03-16-2005, 04:54 PM
To everyone with "Greedy f**king oil companies and damn Bush" comments:

You are aware that you can buy stock in that "obscenely profitable" company, which would then, in turn, make you money, right?

Of course that's assuming your "obscenely profitable" stance is correct...Yeah, that works to some point, but then the liberals will sue the chit out of the companies for making windfall profits.

I don't know how to find, drill, refine, distribute gasoline, but I am damn glad that any time I get an itch I can pull into a gasoline station and buy all I want or need.

Amazing how that chit is there for me on demand.

Pants
03-16-2005, 05:01 PM
That sucks.

Calcountry
03-16-2005, 05:06 PM
That sucks.the marrow out of my bones?

KCWolfman
03-16-2005, 05:52 PM
Do you think the the US government is going to drill the oil and give it away to all the loyal taxpayers? They are going to lease the land to big companies, and the big companies are going to sell the oil for the going price.

I am not against harming wildlife there it an equal benefit for mankind, and I do not have the knowledge to give an educated oppinion on the ecological effects of drilling, but to think gas prices are going to drop 50% because an extra 1/20th of the worlds daily oil supply will be provided by the US in 2015 doesn't seem very logical.

If we took the $$$ that will be spent on this oil drilling and used it for research and developement on alternative fuel sources, could we not reduce the daily oil usage 1 percent a year? That would cut back our dependency on foriegn fuel the same percentage, would not harm the environment, and would actually be better for the environment in regards to the greenhouse effect.
We could do that with the funds for the National Endowment for the Arts or the Federal Education Department and have a lot more to spend.

Calcountry
03-16-2005, 05:55 PM
We could do that with the funds for the National Endowment for the Arts or the Federal Education Department and have a lot more to spend.But we mustn't stop the display of the Cross in a jar full of piss.

Donger
03-16-2005, 05:58 PM
That sucks.

What sucks?

That we're actually going to reduce our dependency on foreign crude by drilling on our own land?

Donger
03-16-2005, 06:02 PM
I've read estimates of 30-40% of fuel cost at the pump today = tax. That's ridiculous!

Close. It hovers around 28%, but that doesn't include local or county taxes, if any.

Here's the breakdown (2003 anyway) of the pricing of gasoline:

44% crude oil
27% taxes
15% refining costs and profit
14% distribution and marketing

Donger
03-16-2005, 06:08 PM
BTW, as of January 2005, crude oil makes up about 51% of the price of a gallon of gasoline.

Donger
03-16-2005, 06:13 PM
Just in case anyone was wondering, here's what "they" get out of a barrel of crude:

What Can Be Made From a 42-Gallon Barrel of Crude Oil?

* 19.5 gallons of gasoline.
* 9.2 gallons of fuel oil (includes home heating oil and diesel fuel).
* 4.1 gallons of jet fuel.
* 2.3 gallons of residual fuel oil (heavy oils used as fuels in industry, marine transportation and for electric power generation)…
* And other items such as liquefied refinery gasses, still gas, coke, asphalt and road oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and kerosene.

jettio
03-16-2005, 06:20 PM
One good thing about this is that a couple of Chiefs Planet techies that get their job sent to India will find a new career in the land of the Aurora Borealis.

I'd say that it might be a good time for some to practice typing with their nose or with mittens on.

KCWolfman
03-16-2005, 06:31 PM
One good thing about this is that a couple of Chiefs Planet techies that get their job sent to India will find a new career in the land of the Aurora Borealis.

I'd say that it might be a good time for some to practice typing with their nose or with mittens on.
Funny coming from someone who's living is producing absolutely nothing for this nation.

jettio
03-16-2005, 06:40 PM
Funny coming from someone who's living is producing absolutely nothing for this nation.

Huh? What nation are you posting from?

The people that have been teaching you to dislike lawyers have a lot of lawyers that work for them.

Calcountry
03-16-2005, 07:01 PM
Huh? What nation are you posting from?

The people that have been teaching you to dislike lawyers have a lot of lawyers that work for them.Most lawyers are nothing more than Ambulence chashers, or to quote my mentor, "Malignant growths on the breast of humanity."

jettio
03-16-2005, 07:18 PM
Most lawyers are nothing more than Ambulence chashers, or to quote my mentor, "Malignant growths on the breast of humanity."

Good luck convincing KCW to admit that he was wrong, but I appreciate the support. :thumb:

Taco John
03-16-2005, 07:21 PM
But isn't it almost as important to not be as reliant on Middle east crude?




Yeah, that's why I'm looking for a new paradigm... Not money thrown into an old one.

Taco John
03-16-2005, 07:24 PM
Funny how the value of the Oil in the Ground in Iraq is worth twice as much money now that we control it???



Control it? The Iraqi pipeline is under attack every day. (http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm)

Boozer
03-16-2005, 07:27 PM
Funny coming from someone who's living is producing absolutely nothing for this nation.

Funny, I don't think I've ever bought one of your products.

jettio
03-16-2005, 07:40 PM
Funny, I don't think I've ever bought one of your products.

And you had better stay away from peer to peer copyright infringed products until after you get your bar apps in.

It would be a big hassle to have to get the judge, prosecutor, and probation officer to write 10 page essays about your sh*tty taste in music just so that you could sit for the bar.

Boozer
03-16-2005, 07:47 PM
And you had better stay away from peer to peer copyright infringed products until after you get your bar apps in.

It would be a big hassle to have to get the judge, prosecutor, and probation officer to write 10 page essays about your sh*tty taste in music just so that you could sit for the bar.

I guess I like to live dangerously.

Mr. Kotter
03-16-2005, 10:57 PM
Yeah, that's why I'm looking for a new paradigm... Not money thrown into an old one.

Support "Star Wars" defense programs do ya?
:hmmm:

Taco John
03-17-2005, 01:45 AM
Support "Star Wars" defense programs do ya?
:hmmm:



I don't support or oppose Star Wars defense programs... It's an issue I just don't know what to think about. It seems to me the best way to overcome a Star Wars defense program is to unleash more than the system can handle. Sounds scary. At the same time, what's to stop our enemies from launching all those missles in the first place. Damned if we do, damned if we dont.

I'm not sure what a Star Wars defense program has anything to do with switching to a new fuel paradigm... But that's you.

penchief
03-17-2005, 07:06 AM
Funny coming from someone who's living is producing absolutely nothing for this nation.

Kinda' like the sacred financial institutions in this country? Let's see.....30% interest compounded daily and then a 35$ late fee for the same purpose. It's not only double dipping it should be a crime.

Money for nothing. Isn't that the American way according to you conservatives? It's an investor nation baby! Workers are a worthless national resource! American families are for exploiting. They are worthless if they aren't investors. Rape them, take away their jobs, their wages, their overtime, their health care, their pensions, and their clean air and water. Then tell them they ought to be investors if they want to take part in the American dream.

Who's dream? George Bush's? The banks'? The oil companies'? The insurance industries'? The pharmaceutical industries'? Cheneyburton's?

Sometimes I think that conservatives view politics as a sporting event. It doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong. It only matters if you win. The lengths some of you will go to defend this White House is mind-boggling. But then again, BushCo knows exactly how to push your buttons.

HC_Chief
03-17-2005, 08:39 AM
Close. It hovers around 28%, but that doesn't include local or county taxes, if any.

Here's the breakdown (2003 anyway) of the pricing of gasoline:

44% crude oil
27% taxes
15% refining costs and profit
14% distribution and marketing

Source?
Thanks :)

Duck Dog
03-17-2005, 09:01 AM
How is it decided who gets to do the drilling?

Radar Chief
03-17-2005, 09:14 AM
Most lawyers are nothing more than Ambulence chashers, or to quote my mentor, "Malignant growths on the breast of humanity."

Q: What’s the difference between a Raggedy Ann doll with rocks in her mouth and a lawyer?
A: The Raggedy Ann doll with rocks in her mouth is a cotton rock sucker. ;)

Radar Chief
03-17-2005, 09:16 AM
I don't support or oppose Star Wars defense programs... It's an issue I just don't know what to think about. It seems to me the best way to overcome a Star Wars defense program is to unleash more than the system can handle. Sounds scary. At the same time, what's to stop our enemies from launching all those missles in the first place. Damned if we do, damned if we dont.

I'm not sure what a Star Wars defense program has anything to do with switching to a new fuel paradigm... But that's you.

Unless I’m mistaken there’s only one maybe two countries with enough nukes to pull off something like that.

RINGLEADER
03-17-2005, 11:06 AM
I'd have rather seen the investment made in developing a new fuel paradigm. But whatever. It's not the end of the world...


Why can't we do both?

Donger
03-17-2005, 11:26 AM
Source?
Thanks :)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/oil_gas/primer/primer.htm

Brock
03-17-2005, 11:37 AM
Kinda' like the sacred financial institutions in this country? Let's see.....30% interest compounded daily and then a 35$ late fee for the same purpose. It's not only double dipping it should be a crime.

Money for nothing. Isn't that the American way according to you conservatives? It's an investor nation baby! Workers are a worthless national resource! American families are for exploiting. They are worthless if they aren't investors. Rape them, take away their jobs, their wages, their overtime, their health care, their pensions, and their clean air and water. Then tell them they ought to be investors if they want to take part in the American dream.

Who's dream? George Bush's? The banks'? The oil companies'? The insurance industries'? The pharmaceutical industries'? Cheneyburton's?

Sometimes I think that conservatives view politics as a sporting event. It doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong. It only matters if you win. The lengths some of you will go to defend this White House is mind-boggling. But then again, BushCo knows exactly how to push your buttons.

I'll remember this post the next time you refer to anyone as an extremist.

HC_Chief
03-17-2005, 11:49 AM
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/oil_gas/primer/primer.htm

Gracias! :D

penchief
03-17-2005, 12:22 PM
I'll remember this post the next time you refer to anyone as an extremist.

Pointing out the obvious is not extreme. It is the conservative record of supporting corporate welfare over human welfare that is extreme. More amazing is the number of rational conservatives who have no problem with their corporate welfare policies. So much for the meaning of the word conservative.

This president's record and the republican congress' record speak for themselves. Why anyone would think that ANWAR drilling is going to translate to a consumer benefit is beyond me. The Cheneyburton's and Enrons have had their way since before the rolling blackouts and still no consumer benefit. Still no accountability. Only more record profits.

Wake up America!

KingPriest2
03-17-2005, 12:51 PM
Control it? The Iraqi pipeline is under attack every day. (http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm)

Iraq earned an estimated $20.0 billion in oil export revenues during 2004, more than double the $9.8 billion earned in 2003. By 2006, Iraq's oil export earnings are expected to approach $25 billion as net oil exports approach 2 million bbl/d, up from 1.6 million bbl/d in 2004. Forecasts for Iraqi oil export revenues are complicated by high levels of uncertainty regarding future Iraqi oil exports, as well as continuing attacks on oil infrastructure

KingPriest2
03-17-2005, 12:57 PM
First of all, you're assuming we'd try to replace all import of oil with solely what we take from ANWAR. Second, you're assuming the 20mbpd is actual consumption when it's actually maximum estimated consumtion of every oil-using system if on and running 24hpd. Third, your 10.4bil estimate probably comes from the low-end of the spectrum... wouldn't surprise me when you say things like "not worth the risk to wildlife"... makes me assume you're a tree hugger. In that case, you'll grab for the lowest, most pessimistic estimate you can find because it props up your position.

At 1mbpd (our current import from our primary source is just over this number) it would take 1000 days (roughly 3 years) to equal 1 billion barrels consumed. Even with your lowball estimate, that's <i>30 years</i> of non-imported consumption.

Sounds like a good idea to me... even at the low end of the spectrum. And, funny enough, the majority of Alaskans want it to happen. Heh, imagine that. :D

Alaskans Wary of Vote on Oil Drilling

2 hours, 36 minutes ago U.S. National - AP


By MATT VOLZ, Associated Press Writer

JUNEAU, Alaska - The tiny north coast town of Kaktovik officially supports responsible development of oil and gas. But many reacted warily to the Senate vote to allow drilling in their back yard.


AP Photo



Even with just 284 residents, Kaktovik is the largest town on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's coastal plain. Mayor Lon Sonsalla said just about everyone has concerns about changes that could accompany any work in the 1.5 million-acre stretch, where billions of barrels of crude oil are believed to rest beneath the tundra.


"We are now given notice that we have to be on our toes," said the mayor said.


A scant majority of the Senate agreed Wednesday to allow oil and gas development on the state's northern coast.


Sonsalla said his town, 850 miles from Juneau and more than 3,000 from Washington, must have a say in developing the rules for oil and gas work in the refuge, and residents' access to traditional hunting and fishing areas must be preserved.


Fenton Rexford, tribal administrator of the Native village of Kaktovik, agreed. The Inupiat village's traditional lands are governed separately from the city of Kaktovik.


Rexford said the tribal government's responsibility is to protect traditional hunting and camping areas and cemeteries.


"There's monetary value and then there is value as far as subsistence sites, camping sites, fishing sites," he said.


Reaction to the Senate vote by the state's political leaders was enthusiastic. For decades, Alaskan politicians have urged Congress to open the refuge to drilling. Those calls grew louder with the decline of oil moving through the trans-Alaska pipeline in recent years.


Democratic state Sen. Donald Olson, whose district and includes Kaktovik, is a longtime supporter of opening the refuge.


"I'm glad that it passed," he said. "I just want to make sure that the concerns and issues of the local people and Mayor Lon Sonsalla are on the front of our radar screen so they are not overrun by industry."


Gov. Frank Murkowski said he has no doubts that oil drilling will take place and he expects the state will benefit from the revenues it will share with the federal government.


Opening the refuge to drilling would give oil companies access to an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of crude oil, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (news - web sites).


The Senate still must pass the budget package in which the proposal was included. The House must take up the issue in an energy package.


"It's like winning one skirmish in a bigger battle," said Republican state House Majority Leader John Coghill.

KingPriest2
03-17-2005, 01:07 PM
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html

Non-OPEC Fact Sheet

Top World Oil Producers, 2003*
(OPEC members in italics)
Country Total Oil Production**
(million barrels per day)
1) Saudi Arabia 9.95
2) United States 8.84
3) Russia 8.44
4) Iran 3.87
5) Mexico 3.79
6) China 3.54
7) Norway 3.27
8) Canada 3.11
9) United Arab Emirates 2.66
10) Venezuela 2.58
11) United Kingdom 2.39
12) Kuwait 2.32
13) Nigeria 2.25
*Table includes all countries total oil production exceeding 2 million barrels per day in 2002.
**Total Oil Production iincludes crude oil, natural gas liquids, condensate, refinery gain, and other liquids
Top World Oil Net Exporters, 2003*
(OPEC members in italics)
Country Net Oil Exports
(million barrels per day)
1) Saudi Arabia 8.38
2) Russia 5.81
3) Norway 3.02
4) Iran 2.48
5) United Arab Emirates 2.29
6) Venezuela 2.23
7) Kuwait 2.00
8) Nigeria 1.93
9) Mexico 1.74
10) Algeria 1.64
11) Libya 1.25
*Table includes all countries with net exports exceeding 1 million barrels per day in 2002.



Top World Oil Consumers, 2003*


Country
Total Oil Consumption
(million barrels per day)

1) United States 20.0

2) China 5.6

3) Japan 5.4

4) Germany 2.6

5) Russia 2.6

6) India 2.2

7) South Korea 2.2

8) Canada 2.2

9) Brazil 2.1

10) France 2.1

10) Mexico 2.1

*Table includes all countries that consumed more
than 2 million bbl/d in 2002.

Top World Oil Net Importers, 2003*

Country Net Oil Imports
(million barrels per day)

1) United States 11.1

2) Japan 5.3

3) Germany 2.5

4) South Korea 2.2

5) China 2.0

6) France 2.0

7) Italy 1.7

8) Spain 1.5

9) India 1.4

*Table includes all countries that imported more than 1
million bbl/d in 2002.

KingPriest2
03-17-2005, 01:23 PM
Home
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html


Very interesting link gas prices and

now crude oil

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/ftparea/wogirs/xls/'1-Crude Oil'!A1

jAZ
03-18-2005, 11:03 AM
To everyone with "Greedy f**king oil companies and damn Bush" comments:

You are aware that you can buy stock in that "obscenely profitable" company, which would then, in turn, make you money, right?

Of course that's assuming your "obscenely profitable" stance is correct...
Are you really that ignorant of how the stock market works?

jAZ
03-18-2005, 11:07 AM
But isn't it almost as important to not be as reliant on Middle east crude?
What makes you (or anyone really) think that the oil from ANWR will end up being used by Americans?

Serious question.

Brock
03-18-2005, 11:07 AM
Are you really that ignorant of how the stock market works?

Irony defined.

jAZ
03-18-2005, 11:10 AM
Irony defined.
Maybe you can explain to him that the value of a stock is set by the market which already understands that the "obscenely profitable" company is "obscenely profitable".

jAZ
03-18-2005, 11:39 AM
What makes you (or anyone really) think that the oil from ANWR will end up being used by Americans?

Serious question.
No time for serious questions?

Or, no time for for tough questions?

Donger
03-18-2005, 11:40 AM
What makes you think that the oil from ANWR will end up being used by Americans?

Serious question.

Considering we don't export any crude right now, I don't think that we will be exporting any crude from ANWR either.

bkkcoh
03-18-2005, 11:42 AM
What makes you think that the oil from ANWR will end up being used by Americans?

Serious question.


Of course, there isn't any guarantee that it will be. I think the point it that the price is determined by both supply and demand, isn't it?

If you increase the supply and demand stays the same and people aren't freaked, wouldn't the price of crude decrease???

The demand aspect of crude can't really be lessened to a big degree. With countries like China and others, the demand can on increase. Consrvation of crude, IMHO, won't make that much of a difference. But I haven't seen the data on that.

jAZ
03-18-2005, 11:46 AM
Of course, there isn't any guarantee that it will be. I think the point it that the price is determined by both supply and demand, isn't it?

If you increase the supply and demand stays the same and people aren't freaked, wouldn't the price of crude decrease???

The demand aspect of crude can't really be lessened to a big degree. With countries like China and others, the demand can on increase. Consrvation of crude, IMHO, won't make that much of a difference. But I haven't seen the data on that.
Wait, I thought we were discussing the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

If that's a driving factor, what says that the oil companies will choose to ship all (or any) of the ANWR oil to America?

Hint: nothing.

jAZ
03-18-2005, 11:49 AM
Considering we don't export any crude right now, I don't think that we will be exporting any crude from ANWR either.
Are you trying to say we don't/haven't exported Alaskan oil to Japan or Korea?

Donger
03-18-2005, 11:50 AM
Are you trying to say we don't/haven't exported Alaskan oil to Japan or Korea?

Have we? Yes.

Are we now? Not that I'm aware of. Do you know differently?

jAZ
03-18-2005, 11:59 AM
Have we? Yes.

Are we now? Not that I'm aware of. Do you know differently?
There was a ban on exporting Alaskan oil until 1995 when the ban was lifted, and oil companies began exporting oil to China, Japan and Korea. I belive something like 10% of Alaskan oil is exported.

Donger
03-18-2005, 12:01 PM
There was a ban on exporting Alaskan oil until 1995 when the ban was lifted, and oil companies began exporting oil to China, Japan and Korea. I belive something like 10% of Alaskan oil is exported.

You believe or know? I honestly don't, but even if we do, I doubt that it's more than a few thousand bpd.

jAZ
03-18-2005, 12:06 PM
You believe or know? I honestly don't, but even if we do, I doubt that it's more than a few thousand bpd.
From 2000, best source I could find.

http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Natural/nrgen-25.cfm?&CFID=421891&CFTOKEN=20034413

About 7% of crude oil production from the Alaska North Slope (ANS) is currently exported to South Korea, Japan, and China.

Donger
03-18-2005, 12:09 PM
From 2000, best source I could find.

http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Natural/nrgen-25.cfm?&CFID=421891&CFTOKEN=20034413

2000 is not 2005.

jAZ
03-18-2005, 12:10 PM
2000 is not 2005.
You are more than welcome to support your claim with a link than shows we don't export any oil today.

Donger
03-18-2005, 12:12 PM
You are more than welcome to support your claim with a link than shows we don't export any oil today.

Heh. Unless I'm mistaken, you were implying that we might export crude from ANWR. And the onus is on me to disprove you?

Donger
03-18-2005, 12:19 PM
You are more than welcome to support your claim with a link than shows we don't export any oil today.

Anyhoo, here's a source for you: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

As you will see, there is no mention of the United States exporting any crude.

Believe it or not, I'm not being flippant. I simply am not aware of the United States exporting any crude at this time. If we are, it will be news to me, and if we are, I guarantee it is a fraction of what we import.

jAZ
03-18-2005, 12:29 PM
Heh. Unless I'm mistaken, you were implying that we might export crude from ANWR. And the onus is on me to disprove you?
Past (or current) behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. To this point, I'm the only one supporting my claims of past (or current) behavior.

jAZ
03-18-2005, 12:32 PM
Anyhoo, here's a source for you: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

As you will see, there is no mention of the United States exporting any crude.

Believe it or not, I'm not being flippant. I simply am not aware of the United States exporting any crude at this time. If we are, it will be news to me, and if we are, I guarantee it is a fraction of what we import.
So the most recent information we have is from 2000 and it said that we were exporting 7% of our Alaskan oil. Until you have some source backing up your claim of 0%, 7% is the best available information.

I'm sure you believe your opinion, but then again Lakoff would say that you have a Frame that you are using which might be defelecting facts that don't fit with your frame.

Donger
03-18-2005, 12:34 PM
So the most recent information we have is from 2000 and it said that we were exporting 7% of our Alaskan oil. Until you have some source backing up your claim of 0%, 7% is the best available information.

I'm sure you believe your opinion, but then again Lakoff would say that you have a Frame that you are using which might be defelecting facts that don't fit with your frame.

The link I provided provides data as recently as 2004.

It is from the US government.

And it does not mention any oil exports, even under the "Oil Exports" section.

Draw your own conclusions.

jAZ
03-18-2005, 12:38 PM
So the most recent information we have is from 2000 and it said that we were exporting 7% of our Alaskan oil.
It's also fair to note that the 7% is/was the maximum legal limit for export.

This doesn't prove that we are still exporting 7% today, but it is a bit of an indicator that oil companies are acting with profit motive, unless restrained by regulation that better matches the national public interest.

This might also suggest that ANWR oil (unless subject to similar regulartory constraints) may likely also be subject to profit motives, rather than national security motives.

Those national security interests are indeed the ones the politicians and party hacks are promoting as the reason/justification for opening up ANWR.

jAZ
03-18-2005, 12:44 PM
The link I provided provides data as recently as 2004.

It is from the US government.

And it does not mention any oil exports, even under the "Oil Exports" section.

Draw your own conclusions.
I know, it has no mention of US exports. That's not the same thing as there being no US exports.

You'll notice the use of the phrase "total net oil imports ".

Donger
03-18-2005, 01:04 PM
I know, it has no mention of US exports. That's not the same thing as there being no US exports.

You'll notice the use of the phrase "total net oil imports ".

Ha! I won.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/quizzes/2005answerQuiz16.shtml

24K bbd exported in 2004.

Personally, I hope that if ANWR is drilled, that there is a provision to either severely limit or prohibit exportation.

jAZ
03-18-2005, 01:14 PM
Ha! I won.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/quizzes/2005answerQuiz16.shtml

24K bbd exported in 2004.

Personally, I hope that if ANWR is drilled, that there is a provision to either severely limit or prohibit exportation.
You won what?

I take it you surrendered your original position that we don't export any oil right now, in favor of a revised position that we actually do export oil now? And you are just hoping to declare victory and hope no one notices the "flip-flop"?

jAZ
03-18-2005, 01:19 PM
Personally, I hope that if ANWR is drilled, that there is a provision to either severely limit or prohibit exportation.
Well, there is no such restriction in any legistation right now. The 7% restriction is specific to the regions currently being drilled.

As for ANWR, I'm not entirely opposed to drilling there, but I believe that alt-energy is a much more viable long-term solution. I would surrender ANWR in the short term, to get an Apollo-esque energy program to phase out or replace fossil fuels with bio-diesel or other pending technology.

But ANWR should come with heavy restrictions and be a short-term solution.

Donger
03-18-2005, 01:20 PM
You won what?

I take it you surrendered your original position that we don't export any oil right now, in favor of a revised position that we actually do export oil now? And you are just hoping to declare victory and hope no one notices the "flip-flop"?

Ermm, I found the answer. So, I won the search.

Like, I said, I wasn't aware that we were presently exporting any crude. I'm now aware of the fact that we are. I was wrong with my original assertion that we don't export any.

But, like I also said, it's a tiny fraction compared to what we import.

Simple as that.

jAZ
03-18-2005, 01:20 PM
But, like I also said, it's a tiny fraction compared to what we import.
Well, at least we agree on that.

Donger
03-18-2005, 01:20 PM
Well, there is no such restriction in any legistation right now. The 7% restriction is specific to the regions currently being drilled.

As for ANWR, I'm not entirely opposed to drilling there, but I believe that alt-energy is a much more viable long-term solution. I would surrender ANWR in the short term, to get an Apollo-esque energy program to phase out or replace fossil fuels with bio-diesel or other pending technology.

But ANWR should come with heavy restrictions and be a short-term solution.

Do you have a link to the wording of the present legislation? I'd like to read it.

Donger
03-18-2005, 01:21 PM
Well, at least we agree on that.

That's weird. You should agree with everything in that post. They're facts.

jAZ
03-18-2005, 01:23 PM
Do you have a link to the wording of the present legislation? I'd like to read it.
I don't. In fact, I have no idea where to get such a thing. But I'd like to know if there is such a resource on the net. It would be useful.

jAZ
03-18-2005, 01:24 PM
That's weird. You should agree with everything in that post. They're facts.
I do, but we seem to disagree on just about everything else.

Donger
03-18-2005, 01:30 PM
I do, but we seem to disagree on just about everything else.

No we don't.

































:p ROFL

RaiderH8r
03-18-2005, 02:54 PM
I don't. In fact, I have no idea where to get such a thing. But I'd like to know if there is such a resource on the net. It would be useful.
There is. It is http://thomas.loc.gov/

And the vote regarding ANWR was not a vote to open drilling. It was a vote on an amendment offered by Sen. Maria Cantwell to remove the language from the budget resolution that would open ANWR for drilling.

Amnorix
03-18-2005, 03:01 PM
There is. It is http://thomas.loc.gov/

And the vote regarding ANWR was not a vote to open drilling. It was a vote on an amendment offered by Sen. Maria Cantwell to remove the language from the budget resolution that would open ANWR for drilling.

Same thing. Including ANWR drilling in the budget is designed to make it filibuster proof and to prevent any chance of having it blocked. Now that it's going to be included in the budget, it will almost certainly pass and become law.

RaiderH8r
03-18-2005, 03:05 PM
Same thing. Including ANWR drilling in the budget is designed to make it filibuster proof and to prevent any chance of having it blocked. Now that it's going to be included in the budget, it will almost certainly pass and become law.
If an oil rig goes in a barren wasteland and there are no hippies there to protest, does it matter?