PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues EIA: Offshore drilling will not impact price until 2030


dirk digler
08-05-2008, 01:41 PM
This is from the Energy Information Administration which is the official energy static tics of the US Government.

I thought this was interesting considering all the people that are saying we need to drill drill drill


http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

Also according to the EIA it appears oil companies already have access to over 30 million barrels of oil in the OCS that they haven't bothered to touch yet but they want more.


http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/10/142042/915

As of 2003, oil companies had available for leasing and development 40.92 billion barrels of offshore oil in the Gulf of Mexico. I asked the EIA analyst how much of that (estimated) available oil had been discovered in the last five years. She went to her computer and said "about 7 billion barrels have been found."

As she explained, the constraints on offshore drilling have little to do with the price of oil, but a lot to do with timing. Once the leases are available, it is five to 10 years before you get to exploratory drilling. There is a tremendous shortage of drilling rigs and manpower. Plus, offshore drilling is so expensive, you don't want to make any mistakes. So you do a lot of seismic analysis to minimize your chances of a dry well.


And it is probably another five or more years from drilling your exploratory well to getting significant production from the area -- and that assumes you didn't dig a dry well. If you did, then you are probably going to be even more cautious. And all that assumes you have developed a pipeline infrastructure for delivering the oil. But the Atlantic Coast lacks such an infrastructure, so who knows how long it would take to get its oil?

HonestChieffan
08-05-2008, 01:45 PM
"Current restrictions are therefore assumed to prevail for the remainder of the projection period, with no exploration or development allowed in areas currently unavailable to leasing." From your link

So...the study data is a review of old data. Opening up to drilling cannot have these silly limits.

Deberg_1990
08-05-2008, 01:47 PM
Yes,

According to Nancy and Obama the planet will explode by then. ROFL

dirk digler
08-05-2008, 01:54 PM
"Current restrictions are therefore assumed to prevail for the remainder of the projection period, with no exploration or development allowed in areas currently unavailable to leasing." From your link

So...the study data is a review of old data. Opening up to drilling cannot have these silly limits.

Not old data the person in the link I quoted talked to the person who wrote the report and that person stated they were about to release new data and it hadn't changed much at all.

That Energy Information Administration analysis is, however, a couple of years old, so I called up the author today and asked if it was being updated. Turns out a new version will be published in a couple of days, but she explained to me that the "answers are not very different" -- no significant impact for the duration of the analysis (through 2030)

Just curious if you think oil is just going to magically appear out of the thin air?

mlyonsd
08-05-2008, 01:55 PM
Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012? WTF? Well, that does sound about right because that'll be about the time the republicans might have another shot to take over congress.

I wonder what those projected dates would have looked like if we had started drilling in the 90's.

HonestChieffan
08-05-2008, 01:56 PM
http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/ANWRmediafactsheet.pdf

dirk digler
08-05-2008, 01:59 PM
Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012? WTF? Well, that does sound about right because that'll be about the time the republicans might have another shot to take over congress.

I wonder what those projected dates would have looked like if we had started drilling in the 90's.

According to the government the current lease cycle expires in 2012 if I am reading that right.

And yes I agree with you we should have been thinking about this 20 years ago.

I have to agree with T. Boone Pickens when I heard him say yesterday the reason why we failed to do anything about foreign oil was because it was dirt cheap. We only have ourselves to blame.

mlyonsd
08-05-2008, 02:00 PM
I have to agree with T. Boone Pickens when I heard him say yesterday the reason why we failed to do anything about foreign oil was because it was dirt cheap. We only have ourselves to blame.

QFT.

dirk digler
08-05-2008, 02:01 PM
http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/ANWRmediafactsheet.pdf

Anwar is not off shore..duh.

Also McCain and Obama both don't want to drill in Anwar so the point is moot.

Also another interesting stat is that CA is never going to allow off shore drilling so what ever estimates the right state cut that in half or more and only the eastern shore will be able to drill. They don't have half the oil CA does.

markk
08-05-2008, 02:04 PM
Not that I grant this date but:

do not save for retirement. you cannot draw that money out until retirement! PFFFF! I mean that's like 20 or 30 YEARS from now. Worry about it later.


This kind of blatant refusal to be forward thinking and proactive is what got us into this mess.

dirk digler
08-05-2008, 02:07 PM
Not that I grant this date but:

do not save for retirement. you cannot draw that money out until retirement! PFFFF! I mean that's like 20 or 30 YEARS from now. Worry about it later.


This kind of blatant refusal to be forward thinking and proactive is what got us into this mess.

We should have been worrying about this 20 years ago. I think at this point we need to move fast on alternatives so we don't get held hostage again

HC_Chief
08-05-2008, 02:08 PM
Not that I grant this date but:

do not save for retirement. you cannot draw that money out until retirement! PFFFF! I mean that's like 20 or 30 YEARS from now. Worry about it later.


This kind of blatant refusal to be forward thinking and proactive is what got us into this mess.

Not very PROGRESSIVE is it?

HonestChieffan
08-05-2008, 02:09 PM
Here is information that is very current from Congresswoman Michele Bachmann
MythBusters
Posted by: Michele Bachmann at 2:56 PM
Energy has clearly been the focus of this blog for the past several weeks, and with gas prices where they are, for good reason. People want to know what America has for energy resources and how we can access them to lower the cost of gas.

Recently, I did my best to debunk the sham "Use it or Lose it" legislation that failed in Congress with a bi-partisan majority.

I'd like to once again set the record straight about some claims that have been cited in a few recent newspaper articles. More specifically, claims made by Philip Budzik of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) that can mislead many readers against the benefits of drilling in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and of accessing our enormous oil shale supplies to help lower the cost of gas.

For instance, here's an exert from Sunday's Star Tribune:

"Bachmann was expected to visit ANWR today to underscore her desire to drill there. But opening the refuge to drilling 'is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices' or the price of gasoline, said [Philip] Budzik of the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Tapping the refuge could cut the cost of a barrel of oil by perhaps 2 percent and shave 1 cent to 3 cents off the pump price of a gallon of gas, he said. As for the Outer Continental Shelf, the EIA said it 'would not have a significant impact" on oil prices before 2030.'

Here's what false assumptions Budzik makes in order to justify saying this:

Assumption #1: Current bans that have prevented American consumers from accessing American energy will remain in place until at least 2012 (exactly what Republicans are working to reverse – right now, not 4 years from now): “Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017.”

Assumption #2: Once we finally get to the OCS, we’ll only be able to find a fraction of the oil and gas that the Minerals Management Service (MMS) – like EIA, also an agency of the Dept. of Energy – believes is out there.



What Budzik says: “With these assumptions, technically recoverable undiscovered resources in the lower 48 OCS increase to 59 billion barrels of oil and 288 trillion cubic feet of natural gas."


What MMS says: “The mean estimate for undiscovered technically recoverable resources (along our nation’s Outer Continental Shelf) totals 85.9 billion barrels of oil and 419.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.” (http://www.mms.gov/PDFs/2005EPAct/InventoryRTC.pdf)



Budzik should be distributing accurate energy information, not just using whatever numbers he feels.

Here's what actual economists have to say about the positive impact an increase in energy supplies will have on the cost of gasoline. This is from last week’s Financial Services Committee hearing:

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA): Is there any way to give a numerical answer? Would half a million barrels [of oil] a day affect the price, a quarter million?

Fed. Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: The short-term elasticity is … that a 1 percent increase in supply could lower prices by 10 percent.

Here are the facts:


A one-percent increase in world oil supply represents 870,000 barrels of oil a day.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=AP&date=20080522&id=8681947

Area 10-02 of the coastal plain of Alaska, constituted as an energy reserve by Jimmy Carter three decades ago, holds the capacity to yield more than 1,000,000 barrels of American oil a day.
http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/ANWRmediafactsheet.pdf


Shale reserves in America’s Mountain West region may hold as many as 2 trillion barrels of American oil. http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/publications/npr_strategic_significancev1.pdf


We have the resources to bring down the cost of gasoline. Those are the facts.

http://townhall.com/blog/michelebachmann

markk
08-05-2008, 02:09 PM
We should have been worrying about this 20 years ago. I think at this point we need to move fast on alternatives so we don't get held hostage again

The government isn't paying for this. All they have to do is sign the f*cking paper to let oil companies do it. It's got nothing to do with alternatives.

dirk digler
08-05-2008, 02:14 PM
The government isn't paying for this. All they have to do is sign the f*cking paper to let oil companies do it. It's got nothing to do with alternatives.

As I already have pointed out oil companies already have access to 30 million barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico they haven't touched. why? Because they don't have enough manpower or enough oil rigs and it is costly to explore.

Also CA is not going to allow drilling off their shore so it is only going to be on the east coast which has a fraction of the oil that CA and the west coast does.

markk
08-05-2008, 02:16 PM
As I already have pointed out oil companies already have access to 30 million barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico they haven't touched. why? Because they don't have enough manpower or enough oil rigs and it is costly to explore.

Also CA is not going to allow drilling off their shore so it is only going to be on the east coast which has a fraction of the oil that CA and the west coast does.

Is it that hard to understand that some locations are more accessible or feasible and they would access those first before going to more remote or difficult to access fields?

Besides, it doesn't have anything to do with your kooky "we need to focus on alternatives", as if that has anything to do with Congress just voting yes.

HC_Chief
08-05-2008, 02:18 PM
As I already have pointed out oil companies already have access to 30 million barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico they haven't touched. why? Because they don't have enough manpower or enough oil rigs and it is costly to explore.

Also CA is not going to allow drilling off their shore so it is only going to be on the east coast which has a fraction of the oil that CA and the west coast does.

Oil shale. If CA doesn't wish to play along, they can pay higher taxes for domestic oil extracted elsewhere ;)

dirk digler
08-05-2008, 02:27 PM
Is it that hard to understand that some locations are more accessible or feasible and they would access those first before going to more remote or difficult to access fields?

Besides, it doesn't have anything to do with your kooky "we need to focus on alternatives", as if that has anything to do with Congress just voting yes.

Sure I can understand that but I think it is more plausible and realistic to think that they have a shortage of manpower and rigs plus it is expensive to explore.

Also it is hard to understand that CA is NEVER going to allow drilling off their coast? The east coast has a fraction of the oil that CA does.

As far as focusing on alternatives it is one of several ways we need to get off foreign oil for good. We need to get plug in hybrid cars, fuel cell cars, clean coal, and use wind and solar power to get the job done. Also we need nuclear power as well.

dirk digler
08-05-2008, 02:27 PM
Oil shale. If CA doesn't wish to play along, they can pay higher taxes for domestic oil extracted elsewhere ;)

I am all for oil shale but have they figured out yet how to extract it or refine it?

HC_Chief
08-05-2008, 02:34 PM
I am all for oil shale but have they figured out yet how to extract it or refine it?

Yes. There are additional methods used (one in Israel uses Bitumen, high pressure, and a acatlytic conversion process).

Rand has a pdf for free here: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG414/index.html

dirk digler
08-05-2008, 02:39 PM
Yes. There are additional methods used (one in Israel uses Bitumen, high pressure, and a acatlytic conversion process).

Rand has a pdf for free here: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG414/index.html

Thanks. So what is the holdup then on extracting all that oil shale in the mountains or whatever it is. I heard it is larger than all of Saudi's oil fields put together.

HonestChieffan
08-05-2008, 02:45 PM
approvals...some leases have been tied up 5 years in courts by opponants to drilling.

dirk digler
08-05-2008, 02:54 PM
approvals...some leases have been tied up 5 years in courts by opponants to drilling.

Thanks and I admit that is stupid but you know what? If Congress were to allow drilling off shore you can bet that it would be tied up in the courts for that long or longer so we may need to expand the 2030 to 2040.

Iowanian
08-05-2008, 02:55 PM
Using the word drilling a month ago, dropped the price of oil more than $20/ barrel.


This arguement is complete and utter bullshit.

The only thing that would hold up drilling would be the effing liberal hippy.

I wish they'd take a bath in organic seal meat and go hug a starving polar bear.

bishop_74
08-05-2008, 03:06 PM
The article is incorrect. In the last couple of weeks 2 things have dropped the price of oil.

1) Bush's repealing his fathers ban on drilling.
2) Republicans in congress demanding to discuss the problem.

No, drilling will not directly impact supply and demand for quite some time, but the speculators will have to modify prices as a result.

This is the first step in what needs to be done in addition to regulating additional sources in the future. Throw everything at it as far as I am concerned.

HonestChieffan
08-05-2008, 03:08 PM
A Men

do it all do it now

If CA doesnt want it drilled, screw California it aint their freaking oil

dirk digler
08-05-2008, 03:11 PM
The article is incorrect. In the last couple of weeks 2 things have dropped the price of oil.

1) Bush's repealing his fathers ban on drilling.
2) Republicans in congress demanding to discuss the problem.

No, drilling will not directly impact supply and demand for quite some time, but the speculators will have to modify prices as a result.

This is the first step in what needs to be done in addition to regulating additional sources in the future. Throw everything at it as far as I am concerned.

The article is not incorrect unless you don't believe your own government which is entirely plausable.

But anyway I agree with your last statement on throw everything at it.

penchief
08-05-2008, 03:13 PM
The article is incorrect. In the last couple of weeks 2 things have dropped the price of oil.

1) Bush's repealing his fathers ban on drilling.
2) Republicans in congress demanding to discuss the problem.

No, drilling will not directly impact supply and demand for quite some time, but the speculators will have to modify prices as a result.

This is the first step in what needs to be done in addition to regulating additional sources in the future. Throw everything at it as far as I am concerned.

At least you're admitting that speculation is the bigger factor in the price of oil.

Also, I wonder how much of our current domestic production is providing for America's consumption and how much is being sold to other countries.

IMO, It's hard to believe that drilling is the answer when so much of the oil companies' actions don't jibe with their rhetoric.

StcChief
08-05-2008, 03:40 PM
Yes,

According to Nancy and Obama the planet will explode by then. ROFL

and off shore oil will in Arkansas, Rockie/Sierra Nevada range, Applauchian mtns.

Global warmin all the polar ice has melted ROFLLMAO

HC_Chief
08-05-2008, 03:47 PM
At least you're admitting that speculation is the bigger factor in the price of oil.

Oh dear lord; take the time to look up commodities speculation then get back to us on the evils of our free market capitalism. Spouting talking points without understanding them is the pinnacle of stupidity.

RJ
08-05-2008, 04:04 PM
The article is incorrect. In the last couple of weeks 2 things have dropped the price of oil.

1) Bush's repealing his fathers ban on drilling.
2) Republicans in congress demanding to discuss the problem.

No, drilling will not directly impact supply and demand for quite some time, but the speculators will have to modify prices as a result.

This is the first step in what needs to be done in addition to regulating additional sources in the future. Throw everything at it as far as I am concerned.


Is that really why oil prices dropped? If it is, great, I don't care why and will gladly give them credit. But it seems more likely to me, based on what I've read, that the reason for the price drop is a decrease in U.S. demand for gasoline.

Also, if our economy has slowed down to where we're not buying as much Chinese crap, I assume China's demand for oil has fallen as well.

Or maybe it's a combination of those things and Bush's actions.

penchief
08-05-2008, 04:15 PM
Oh dear lord; take the time to look up commodities speculation then get back to us on the evils of our free market capitalism. Spouting talking points without understanding them is the pinnacle of stupidity.

He's the one that said it. Not me.

Even so, market manipulation is clearly a factor. To suggest otherwise is to bury your head in the sand. The free money ethic advocated by Wall Street has played itself out in more arenas than just the oil market. Wake up and smell the corruption.

You should also take a look at yourself before you start accusing others of spouting talking points. Objective observation is clearly not one of your strong suits.

Garcia Bronco
08-05-2008, 04:22 PM
I am so sick of the American'ts. It could take 45 years, but if governemnt got out the frickin way we could be up and running in 2-3 years.

Garcia Bronco
08-05-2008, 04:23 PM
Oh dear lord; take the time to look up commodities speculation then get back to us on the evils of our free market capitalism. Spouting talking points without understanding them is the pinnacle of stupidity.


Speaking of stupidity, I believe I have a debt to settle with you.

HC_Chief
08-05-2008, 04:57 PM
Speaking of stupidity, I believe I have a debt to settle with you.

LOL - I had a sig for you but it's been so long I have no idea what it was. Something to do with some vaunted aspect of VT you kept referencing, but like I said, I can't remember. :D

KU won so it's all good. BTW, I got so effing drunk during that game.... holy hell, don't mix quadruple ale with red wine. Sick for two days after that.

He's the one that said it. Not me.

Even so, market manipulation is clearly a factor. To suggest otherwise is to bury your head in the sand. The free money ethic advocated by Wall Street has played itself out in more arenas than just the oil market. Wake up and smell the corruption.

You should also take a look at yourself before you start accusing others of spouting talking points. Objective observation is clearly not one of your strong suits.
pen - it's not "market manipulation"; it is unregulated index trading. "Commodity Speculation" is what commodity traders do. Commodity index speculation occurs when people purchase a commodity with no intention of obtaining the commodity; in other words, they're monetizing the transaction - hedging based upon futures trading of the commodity. If you invest in an index fund, there is a very real chance you are participating in this act without even knowing it!

Until recently commodities had two "states" (to coin a oop phrase): consumed or stored. What the index hedging does is purchase commodities at a set price, then sell at a higher price (hopefully, thus a "hedge") based on futures market trends. Increase of supply typically drives down the futures market (simple economics - greater supply with equal demand equals lower pricing). Instability in supply regions = higher prices on the futures market; the bet is supply may be decreased due to conflict, weather, whatever, and therefore prices increase. The Index speculators have no intention of actually obtaining the commodity - they are betting (hedge) on the futures market increase. As this is currently unregulated, it has grown significantly in the past five or so years (about the same rate as China's increase in consumption). The difference is bona fide commodities traders actually buy & sell commodities for market, whereas index traders are monetizing the transaction.... they are money in, money out, with no actual purchase of the commodity. This, paired with a weak dollar, drives prices up.

penchief
08-05-2008, 06:42 PM
LOL - I had a sig for you but it's been so long I have no idea what it was. Something to do with some vaunted aspect of VT you kept referencing, but like I said, I can't remember. :D

KU won so it's all good. BTW, I got so effing drunk during that game.... holy hell, don't mix quadruple ale with red wine. Sick for two days after that.


pen - it's not "market manipulation"; it is unregulated index trading. "Commodity Speculation" is what commodity traders do. Commodity index speculation occurs when people purchase a commodity with no intention of obtaining the commodity; in other words, they're monetizing the transaction - hedging based upon futures trading of the commodity. If you invest in an index fund, there is a very real chance you are participating in this act without even knowing it!

Until recently commodities had two "states" (to coin a oop phrase): consumed or stored. What the index hedging does is purchase commodities at a set price, then sell at a higher price (hopefully, thus a "hedge") based on futures market trends. Increase of supply typically drives down the futures market (simple economics - greater supply with equal demand equals lower pricing). Instability in supply regions = higher prices on the futures market; the bet is supply may be decreased due to conflict, weather, whatever, and therefore prices increase. The Index speculators have no intention of actually obtaining the commodity - they are betting (hedge) on the futures market increase. As this is currently unregulated, it has grown significantly in the past five or so years (about the same rate as China's increase in consumption). The difference is bona fide commodities traders actually buy & sell commodities for market, whereas index traders are monetizing the transaction.... they are money in, money out, with no actual purchase of the commodity. This, paired with a weak dollar, drives prices up.

I'll confess that I am by no means a market expert. Neither am I completely ignorant. But if I understand you correctly you're saying that it is impossible for market manipulation to exist. Somehow I find that hard to believe.

What is the meaning of "cornering the market?" Also, hasn't there been examples in history when market powers have tried to excercise their market power in order to artificially affect supply? Haven't monopolies behaved in such a manner at times? Why has there been anti-manipulation legislation passed in the past?

So while you may be more of a market expert than I am, surely you don't mean that market manipulation is impossible.

Baby Lee
08-05-2008, 06:44 PM
I have to agree with T. Boone Pickens when I heard him say yesterday the reason why we failed to do anything about foreign oil was because it was dirt cheap. We only have ourselves to blame.
Some of us failed to push something through. Some of us actively blocked anything getting pushed through.

HC_Chief
08-05-2008, 07:00 PM
I'll confess that I am by no means a market expert. Neither am I completely ignorant. But if I understand you correctly you're saying that it is impossible for market manipulation to exist. Somehow I find that hard to believe.

What is the meaning of "cornering the market?" Also, hasn't there been examples in history when market powers have tried to excercise their market power in order to artificially affect supply? Haven't monopolies behaved in such a manner at times? Why has there been anti-manipulation legislation passed in the past?

So while you may be more of a market expert than I am, surely you don't mean that market manipulation is impossible.

I misspoke... it is a form of market manipulation, but not for nefarious means IMHO. It's more of a loophole that index fund managers discovered. It is not unlike the tech bubble - where the excessive trading of virtual assets resulted in a balloon effect.

I found a good article on it via Google... search for commodities speculation; should be the first result. It's pretty detailed but not too complex. The guy know his stuff, that's for sure.

ROYC75
08-05-2008, 07:38 PM
According to the government the current lease cycle expires in 2012 if I am reading that right.

And yes I agree with you we should have been thinking about this 20 years ago.

I have to agree with T. Boone Pickens when I heard him say yesterday the reason why we failed to do anything about foreign oil was because it was dirt cheap. We only have ourselves to blame.

BINGO !!!!!!!!!!! THE ARABS ARE NOT STUPID ANYMORE TO THE POWER OF OIL.

ROYC75
08-05-2008, 07:39 PM
Is that really why oil prices dropped?

YES, IT IS .

BucEyedPea
08-05-2008, 08:03 PM
This is from the Energy Information Administration which is the official energy static tics of the US Government.
Why would anyone trust a report from the govt? The govt f's more things up, can't calculate or predict anything with accuracy, especially when it comes to numbers.

I'm not saying your second paragraph is in error though. But whoever wrote it doesn't understand economics. Because the threat competiton via of alternatives or new sources can cause prices to drop. Just as a threat of war can cause them to rise.

Probably some stupid bureaucrat wrote it.

bishop_74
08-05-2008, 08:07 PM
I am so sick of the American'ts. It could take 45 years, but if governemnt got out the frickin way we could be up and running in 2-3 years.


(In a Catholic Monk Chant) AH-MEN......

penchief
08-06-2008, 08:02 AM
YES, IT IS .

Maybe. But maybe it had to do with the anti-manipulation legislation which republicans in congress defeated but still succeeded in shining a light on the problem. The oil market manipulators aren't so stupid as to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Taking their foot off the accelerator just enough to ease the scrutiny would be a wise move on their part. They don't call them manipulators for nothing.

BucEyedPea
08-06-2008, 09:47 AM
A Men

do it all do it now

If CA doesnt want it drilled, screw California it aint their freaking oil

Sell it to them at a higher price to subsidize it for the rest of us too. Heh!:D

KILLER_CLOWN
08-06-2008, 10:20 AM
As much as we need to drill on the Northern Shelf of ALASKA the largest Oil Reserve on the planet the big oil execs have already decided that won't happen. They will not drill here, but rather will soon anounce 2 new large fields one north of Russia and one in Indonesia and send oil to $50 a barrel.