TFatseas Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) Link US to open 3.9m acres in Alaska for drilling By Sheila McNulty in Houston Published: July 16 2008 22:57 | Last updated: July 16 2008 22:57 The US federal government on Wednesday said it would open 3.9m acres of land in a designated petroleum reserve in Alaska for drilling as a means to help curb rising petrol prices. “This is welcome news at a time when Americans are paying record prices at the pump,” said C. Stephen Allred, assistant US Secretary for Land and Minerals. “Together with proposed new production from other offshore and onshore areas, these increased supplies will help to stabilise energy costs.’’ The Alaska decision follows one by President George W. Bush on Monday to lift a presidential ban on drilling on the US outer continental shelf, off Florida. That decision still requires Congress to lift a separate ban on the area before the area can be leased for development. But the Bureau of Land Management, an agency within the US Department of the Interior, said the Alaskan land that will now be offered requires no other approvals and will be up for leasing in the autumn. The site was set aside decades ago but development was blocked by lawsuits from environmentalists concerned about disrupting wildlife. The government has tackled these fears, making it a condition of the lease by oil and gas companies that polar bears, waterfowl and caribou are protected. Hmm.. I can't find other articles on this but anyways it seems to be a legit source. I wonder what is going to happen next. ETA:Update Link U.S. to offer oil leases in Alaska NPRA this fall * Save This * Email This * Print This * Most Popular REUTERS 11:30 a.m. July 16, 2008 ANCHORAGE – The U.S. Bureau of Land Management said Wednesday it will hold an oil lease sale this autumn for acreage in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska that the government says could hold 8.4 billion barrels of crude. The move comes amid a push in Washington to boost domestic oil drilling to help wean the United States off its dependence on foreign shipments. “We believe that the area within the NPRA and the area opened by this decision can provide more than 8 billion barrels of oil to help us share our future supplies with the citizens of the United States,” Assistant Interior Secretary Steve Allred told reporters at a news conference. “We believe that the opening and the sale, which will occur in October, will tend to reduce pressure on prices. . .and encourage us to increase supply of oil and natural gas from resources we have here at home.” The sale will include some 2.6 million acres in the Northeast section of the NPRA and and unknown amount in Northwest section, the BLM said during a news conference. The lease sale will be the fifth in the past decade offered in the Indiana-sized NPRA. The sale would make available land that had been offered in the previous lease sales, which date back to 1999. Edited July 17, 2008 by TFatseas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breaking Bohan Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) Our government is terrible ... this is beneath contempt. PS _ I think this story is FALSE - nothing on AP or CNN about said events. Edited July 17, 2008 by Breaking Bohan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swolo yaggins Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 THIS NEWS IS TERRIFIC. The only f*cking reason we have Alaska is to drill for oil. 5192:12.3.02LM/SSHmkl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin2006rhs Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Its about time. All this "protect the animals/land" bullsh*t when we have damn-near perfected eco-safe drilling and mining procedures. I just want everyone to stop bitching about gas prices and crying "save the animals". Because its the people bitching about the safety of the animals are the same ones bitching about gas prices but don't offer safer ideas on how to stop the swell in price other than saying "we need to look towards hybrid and other non-carbon reliant sources of power." without offering any ideas on how to pass the time between now and when that "future power" comes to fruition. The caribou will be fine, polar bears are f*cked because the ice is gonna melt anyways, so lets just drill and get to work cheaper while we still can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breaking Bohan Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Its about time. All this "protect the animals/land" bullsh*t when we have damn-near perfected eco-safe drilling and mining procedures. I just want everyone to stop bitching about gas prices and crying "save the animals". Because its the people bitching about the safety of the animals are the same ones bitching about gas prices but don't offer safer ideas on how to stop the swell in price other than saying "we need to look towards hybrid and other non-carbon reliant sources of power." without offering any ideas on how to pass the time between now and when that "future power" comes to fruition. The caribou will be fine, polar bears are f*cked because the ice is gonna melt anyways, so lets just drill and get to work cheaper while we still can. It's true - they're generally a bunch of whining fags w/ no real ideas ... but they love to complain and cast blame all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedimario Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 A Google news search revealed no such story, I don't think it's true. It would be too good to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voteneg Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) There will be no drop in price... it's a world market that that added supply is going to... peak production won't hit until decades from now... and even so it's projected that it will effect prices by 2.00 dollars per barrel tops... and that's a generous estimate... thats 2.00 dollars per barrel... not gallon. Yeah I'm a whiny fag who has nor real ideas... yet I've consistently advocated large scale investment in electric vehicle components and battery technology. General Motors, Toyota, Honda, and companies like Tesla and Fisker (and their subsidiaries) are doing very well in developing battery tech... however a large investment in some more research... and then incentive to produce en masse is needed to really make electric economically viable... in short we just need a real big push/shove to put it over the top. We put a man on the f*cking moon in less than 10 years... from scratch. We sure as hell can develop some viable batteries for electric vehicles. It would also be more environmentally friendly (with proper battery disposal) because the energy (even carbon based) power plants are much more efficient than gasoline engines. Hell if we really wanted to go the whole nine yards we could produce windmills, solar cells, and tidal power generating systems to feed the grid as opposed to coal. Edited July 17, 2008 by voteneg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFatseas Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 From what I'm gathering, if it is true, they are not drilling ANWR 1002 but NPR-A instead. So I'll keep looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFatseas Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 Double post but update in OP. It is the NPR-A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus'En'Hitler420 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) There will be no drop in price... it's a world market that that added supply is going to... peak production won't hit until decades from now... and even so it's projected that it will effect prices by 2.00 dollars per barrel tops... and that's a generous estimate... thats 2.00 dollars per barrel... not gallon. It doesn't have to be a global market, which it won't be. The oil found will probalbly be subsidized for only our use. Why the f*ck else would we be doing it? To get away from the middle eastern oil and whoever else is supplying it, incase you forgot, which is the reason we are in this mess. As for your electric car rant, I probalbly wouldn't be able to get one in 10 years with the way car prices are, and that's if all the rich and upper middle class started using them tomorrow so I can buy it used. Another reason more gas is needed, people like me won't be able to even buy your electric battery car in 10 years if we keep having to reach so far up our asses for gas money. It'll be 20 years before we could afford it if gas prices keep going up, and I can tell you I sure am not saving a penny for that day at this point in time. Edited July 17, 2008 by Jesus'En'Hitler420 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forfit Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 It's true i read it on yahoo news but i lost the link, i'll keep looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voteneg Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) There will be no drop in price... it's a world market that that added supply is going to... peak production won't hit until decades from now... and even so it's projected that it will effect prices by 2.00 dollars per barrel tops... and that's a generous estimate... thats 2.00 dollars per barrel... not gallon. It doesn't have to be a global market, which it won't be. The oil found will probalbly be subsidized for only our use. Why the f*ck else would we be doing it? To get away from the middle eastern oil and whoever else is supplying it, incase you forgot, which is the reason we are in this mess. Correct it would increase the ratio of home drilled oil as opposed to the amount that we currently import. Which is arguably a benefit to drilling... however that benefit won't be seen until 10 or so plus years down the road... The point is that by then we can have viable sources of alternative energy... that we we won't be dependent upon any oil... ours or someone elses. Electric cars are an option and they can be made for cheap... we just need to make a conscious effort as a country to invest in those sorts of technologies... funding for research is limited... and the economies of scale hinder low prices. Significant investment in forms of grants... tax breaks... and other sorts of funding need to be made to jumpstart the tech. Here is a post I made about ANWR a few weeks back. I encourage you to read it. I think that Congress should just give authorization for drilling in ANWR, that would certainly help. It would take a good amount of time to really get going there, I'd imagine, but the amount of oil in that area is too much for us to not drill there. Ironically, the media never seems to mention the fact that the area of land in ANWR which is being drilled is just 2,000 acres out of the 19 million acres that makes up ANWR. No one likes to see nature be destroyed, but if this minuscule sacrifice can help relieve our dependence on foreign oil, the .0105% (one tenth of one percent) of ANWR that is being considered for drilling is well worth it. I'm serious with what I'm about to say. That and the U.S. needs more nuclear reactors, I'm sure some of the French citizens here can agree with that considering a huge amount of the energy produced there is from nuclear powerplants. Currently only 20% of the U.S.'s energy is produced by nuclear power. I think that if there were more nuclear power plants and if drilling was allowed in ANWR the U.S. could be energy self sufficient. That's my opinion on the matter of a possible oil/energy crisis. I think that Iran shut down the Gulf oil exports that would definitely provoke a war. There was speculation towards the end of 2007 if there would be an invasion of Iran, and I think that Iran cuts off those exports there will certainly be an invasion of the country. ANWR: Maps for better understanding. First... that 2000 acre figure is provided to us by the oil companies... it's their estimate... of course their gonna underinflate the impact they'll carry while drilling. Even so I have to admit that even if they used 10,000 acres it'd be piddily sh*t compared to the size of ANWR and area 1002. But also we must consider that although that may be the physical space drilling takes up... it doesn't account for noise... vibrations... scent... and light disturbances that carry on well passed the borders of the drilling compounds... all of which could potentially damage the environment or alter migration patterns for the native caribou. Second. I have heard/read the 2000 acre figure in several papers and major media news shows... your just selectively pointing out what you don't agree with. The media is not biased against big oil. In fact they are very much supported and funded through big oil, how many generic oil company commercials do you see on tv... usually they have no point other than highlighting how much they're working for the energy of tomorrow... painting everything in some rosy picture... with wide shots of vast stretches of pretty landscape... and kids running through the distance with kites or some bullsh*t... and then a fancy logo fade-in, as if any of that has anything to do with drilling for f*cking oil. Third. It will take several years for that oil to start flowing... estimates place extraction about 7-10 years off. Here's an an excerpt from an EIA report. This analysis assumes that enactment of the legislation in 2008 would result in first production from the ANWR area in 10 years, i.e., 2018. The primary constraints to a rapid development of ANWR oil resources are the limited weather “windows” for collecting seismic data and drilling wells (a 3-to-4 month winter window) and for ocean barging of heavy infrastructure equipment to the well site (a 2-to-3 month summer window). The assumption that ANWR oil production would begin 10 years after legislation approves the Federal oil and natural gas leasing in the 1002 Area is based on the following 8-to-12 year timeline: • 2 to 3 years to obtain leases, including the development of a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) leasing program, which includes approval of an Environmental Impact Statement, the collection and analysis of seismic data, and the auction and award of leases. • 2 to 3 years to drill a single exploratory well. Exploratory wells are slower to drill because geophysical data are collected during drilling, e.g., rock cores and well logs. Typically, Alaska North Slope exploration wells take two full winter seasons to reach the desired depth... • 3 to 4 years to construct the feeder pipelines; to fabricate oil separation and treatment plants, and transport them up from the lower-48 States to the North Slope by ocean barge; construct drilling pads; drill to depth; and complete the wells... Fourth. The United States Geological Service (USGS) estimates that there is a 95% liklihood that there is at least 6 billion barrels... and only a 5% chance that 16 billion is recoverable. The mean estimate of 10 billion barrels is usually used... and even so it only has a 50% chance of being recovered. Remember that all figures are in potentially recoverable units... estimations are made on what is technically/feasibly able to be recovered. Advancements in technology might yield a 5-15% increase in those numbers. The USGS text continues: "The USGS oil resource estimates are based largely on the oil productivity of geologic formations that exist in the neighboring State lands and which continue into ANWR. Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR. Thus, the potential ultimate oil recovery and potential yearly production are highly uncertain." Fifth. "In the future we're going to throw every supply-side solution (wind, solar, etc. assuming mostly electric cars) we've got at the energy scarcity problem, but the oil situation is special. Oil is so precious that we owe it to future generations to save some for their use. ANWR is a good case in point. We could start the development now and get some oil in the 2020s, or we can wait a little longer and see oil flows (of unknown volumes) some years later. I suspect our elected leaders will succumb to pressure within a few years and authorize development of the resource, but it will do nothing to alleviate our predicament in the next 15 years. Americans have run through all their easily obtainable, cheap oil. Therefore, the best solutions are on the demand-side. We must consume less oil, that's all there is to it. Telecommuting, 4-day workweeks, car pooling, new mass transit systems, long-haul railroads to replace the airlines, you name it. All of this is a no-brainer. ANWR is not the answer." Sixth. There is argument over the potential environmental impact oil drilling will have... it could be none... it could be catastrophic... both to the wildlife and the native Gwich'in peoples. The answer is unknown. Seventh. Oil companies are pushing for ANWR drilling because it would prolong the death of the industry... furthermore it would serve to increase their stock value because investors would be happy they were sitting on potential profit. Aaand when it is recovered (provided they get the rights) they'll get to pocket the profit... they're clearly benefitting from amazingly high oil prices... there the only ones doing well these days... take a look at the wallstreet journal... for the most part energy funds are the only ones going up. Also refer to this article for more information on the EIA report. http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/nation...oil-prices.html The report concludes oil prices would drop at most 1.44 dollars per barrel... not gallon... per barrel. Also it stated that OPEC could just limit their production to nuetralize the additional ANWR oil... enough to maintain the high demand this high prices. We as Americans need to face the facts. Oil is done. We need to move to wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and possibly nuclear energy instead of focusing on oil. The technology is there... a little more research and funding would go a long ways in making the tech more commercially viable. Edited July 17, 2008 by voteneg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus'En'Hitler420 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) So you're saying a car could be made and sold for a couple grand if this conscious effort was put in? I'm all for the alternatives, but oil is still the winning fuel, and that won't be changing anytime soon, unfortunately. Edited July 17, 2008 by Jesus'En'Hitler420 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voteneg Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) So you're saying a car could be made and sold for a couple grand if this conscious effort was put in? I'm all for the alternatives, but oil is still the winning fuel, and that won't be changing anytime soon, unfortunately. Oil is still necessary and it will be so long as we do not invest in alternatives... This tech isn't gonna magically pop out from under a rock and say "here I am" when we're at the end of our rope and our economy has grinded to a halt. I don't know how much an electric car would sell for... I doubt a couple of grand... I'd imagine at similar price points as current cumbustion vehicles do today, everything would depend on the type of vehicle, it's size, features, quality, and luxury... the point is they could be what the current market is willing to pay for gasoline cars... if we invest in battery tech to make it commercially viable. Don't tell me we cannot accomplish it... again we went to the moon from scratch, coming from a position behind the Soviet Union is the space race... and we beat them to it. We're certainly capable of doing it... it just requires a lot of investment... investment that will have to be made sooner or later anyways. Don't get me wrong... it kills me to admit this... I love my muscle cars and the rumble of a throaty high displacement v8... the smell of gas at a gas station at 2 in the morning... and the wonderful nostalgic feel it all has. But oil is finite... we can't run our world of it forever. Edited July 17, 2008 by voteneg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus'En'Hitler420 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I hear you completely, but that oil that'll take 10 years to finally get, if I play my cards right, I could probalbly keep my '85 Caprice running for another 10 years, then it's smooth sailing on the oil train from there. You guys can go ahead with the electric cars unless I strike it rich out of nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voteneg Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) I hear you completely, but that oil that'll take 10 years to finally get, if I play my cards right, I could probalbly keep my '85 Caprice running for another 10 years, then it's smooth sailing on the oil train from there. But the point is that oil won't reduce prices hardly a tad... about $1.44 per barrel at today's prices. It'll still be too expensive even with the ANWR oil. And I know what you mean about sh*t being to expensive... electric cars and all costing 60K +. And oil becoming increasingly pricey. I've had to start taking my bike to work... it's ten miles each way... I can't even afford the cheapest vehicle option at the moment... that's why I'm resorting to pedal power. Luckily I have that option... some people need to commute 20-40 miles plus each way. Those people are the ones who will be hurt the worst by all of this. Again my argument is that the only reason electric cars are so expensive is because the batteries aren't yet at a stage where they are cheap enough to make... and not able to hold long enough of a charge. And also because so few electric cars are being built... the more you are able to produce... the more the price goes down... economies of scale. Edited July 17, 2008 by voteneg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saggy Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) I doubt that America will be able to adopt a new technology, and then form a viable infrastructure around it, all in the context of an already failing automobile industry for the U.S. The best scenario would be that the new technology breathe life into the failing auto industry, but I really doubt that would happen faster than finding oil, and using it in an existing infrastructure. The main thing that we have to think about here is the consumer. All vehicles are expensive, and vehicles based upon new technology, that uses new infrastructure, will be even more expensive. The simple fact of the matter is that people today are still driving cars that are 10, 20, 30 years old, when the latest models made in the last five years have much better fuel efficiency and emissions controls. If in the next ten years we are capable of switching to electric technology, and replacing the current petrol/gasoline infrastructure, I seriously doubt that consumerism will match that pace of development. We will basically be left with a quasi "hybrid-infrastructure" of petrol and electric, both to power the cars that at that point will be 10,20, or 30 years old that people will still be driving. The difference is that, at this point, the 10 year old cars might be electric or hybrids, or perhaps just gasoline/petrol cars with extremely good fuel economy and emissions control. However, we're still not going to shed the dependency of the gasoline/petrol infrastructure, if consumers cannot afford to buy newer cars that don't use the gasoline/petrol technology. Everything I've said is probably pretty obvious, and has probably been refuted, and has plenty arguments against it. I grant that. However, the point is that, I don't believe that technology drives consumers, I believe consumers drive technology. If consumers aren't willing/able to dive into the new, expensive, but much better technology, then there is no way a viable infrastructure could follow it, without first piggy-backing off of the one that's already here. That being said, we really need to start thinking about new sources of oil to support that infrastructure. For one thing, as the world gradually adopts new technology and infrastructure such as electric, I think there will be a far fewer amount of countries willing to export oil and essentially lose money on a dying technology, when they could be making much higher profits off of other countries that made the switch before us. I don't think that drilling in Alaska, and in this area, is going to pay off for consumers as quickly as they'd like to think it would though. It's still going to take a pretty long time to drill, and we're still going to be relying mostly on a foreign oil supply, so I think the switch to other energy sources--preferably electric or solar--is definitely necessary, but I don't think that the idea we'll be able to completely switch within a decade is realistic. Edited July 17, 2008 by SagaciousKJB QUOTE (K^2) ...not only is it legal for you to go around with a concealed penis, it requires absolutely no registration! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus'En'Hitler420 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) Why can't government take out their taxes on oil? I hear that's about 60 cents of the current price. Also, there's far more oil not only in ANWR and NPR-A, we also have offshore drilling, the Dakotas, and other areas in the West. The U.S Minerals Management service estimates 86 billion barrels of crude and 400 trillion cubic feet of natural gas alone off of our own shores. A lot of the media undercuts all the gas we can drill for. ANWR is not the only place at stake, and all of that can surely drive down the price. Sagacious hit the nail on the head about the individual consumer, which applies to me. Edited July 17, 2008 by Jesus'En'Hitler420 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makeshyft Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Instead of drilling for more oil, how about closing up the loophole that allows oil companies to charge whatever the hell they want for the stuff? If that could be achieved, petrol prices would halve. No good? I suppose greed always wins out, and campaign contributions are important, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus'En'Hitler420 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Oil companies only make about 8 cents for every dollar, which is then divided up among many, many, many people, people you wouldn't even think get a piece of the pie, makeshyft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makeshyft Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Oil companies only make about 8 cents for every dollar, which is then divided up among many, many, many people, people you wouldn't even think get a piece of the pie, makeshyft. Fair enough, but the prices charged per barrel are largely arbitrary values, and not subject to the usual rules of supply and demand. Maybe my disdain is misdirected, but the idea remains the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus'En'Hitler420 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Indeed, we do have a lot of problems with getting oil cheaply today. We have speculators always putting their say on what the oil supply will be in the future (Which never seems to be good), we have countries that don't like the west and want to squeeze us until we hurt by increasing their cost to export, and more and more countries beginning to join the modernized world, so they also needs lots of oil. As for the U.S alone, if we opened all the areas to drill that we could, wouldn't that by default cause the speculators to start saying good things about supply, thus dropping the price? It seems a lot of our price problems come from the fact that there's no good outlook at the moment, being caused by our own congressional blockades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voteneg Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) I doubt that America will be able to adopt a new technology, and then form a viable infrastructure around it, all in the context of an already failing automobile industry for the U.S. The best scenario would be that the new technology breathe life into the failing auto industry, but I really doubt that would happen faster than finding oil, and using it in an existing infrastructure. The main thing that we have to think about here is the consumer. All vehicles are expensive, and vehicles based upon new technology, that uses new infrastructure, will be even more expensive. The simple fact of the matter is that people today are still driving cars that are 10, 20, 30 years old, when the latest models made in the last five years have much better fuel efficiency and emissions controls. If in the next ten years we are capable of switching to electric technology, and replacing the current petrol/gasoline infrastructure, I seriously doubt that consumerism will match that pace of development. We will basically be left with a quasi "hybrid-infrastructure" of petrol and electric, both to power the cars that at that point will be 10,20, or 30 years old that people will still be driving. The difference is that, at this point, the 10 year old cars might be electric or hybrids, or perhaps just gasoline/petrol cars with extremely good fuel economy and emissions control. However, we're still not going to shed the dependency of the gasoline/petrol infrastructure, if consumers cannot afford to buy newer cars that don't use the gasoline/petrol technology. Everything I've said is probably pretty obvious, and has probably been refuted, and has plenty arguments against it. I grant that. However, the point is that, I don't believe that technology drives consumers, I believe consumers drive technology. If consumers aren't willing/able to dive into the new, expensive, but much better technology, then there is no way a viable infrastructure could follow it, without first piggy-backing off of the one that's already here. That being said, we really need to start thinking about new sources of oil to support that infastructure. For one thing, as the world gradually adopts new technology and infrastructure such as electric, I think there will be a far fewer amount of countries willing to export oil and essentically lose money on a dying technology, when they could be making much higher profits off of other countries that made the switch before us. I don't think that drilling in Alaska, and in this area, is going to pay off for consumers as quickly as they'd like to think it would though. It's still going to take a pretty long time to drill, and we're still going to be relying mostly on a foreign oil supply, so I think the switch to other energy sources--preferrably electric or solar--is definitely necessary, but I don't think that the idea we'll be able to completely switch within a decade is relalistic. Absolutely true. A complete shift like I'm advocating cannot be halfassed. The best way to start the ball rolling on this is to motivate the people into feeling like it's their comfort, country and future at stake. You bring up the point of creating the infrastructure to accommodate this new technology. That is also part of the concern in developing all of this and making it viable. I believe it would come down to the design of the vehicles. People are obviously want to go on road trips where quick portable charging will be needed to allow drivers to extend their range beyond what one night's charge will allow. People won't settle for being limited to 200 miles per day. Let's be realistic here... we could easily take away half of the gas stations in the U.S. and repurpose them as electric stations and everything would probably be just fine. I mean realistically we have a sh*t ton of gas stations... 3 on the same intersection two blocks from my house and I'm sure 10 others within a 10 mile radius. And it's like that in most places of the United States. The only thing lost is some a little convenience... and even still having to drive 2 extra miles to make it to the next gas station because your regular one became an electric station isn't hardly that big of a deal. There has been some experiments will removable battery packs where individual cells can be pulled out and replaced... or the whole bank of them at once. It would come down to the car designers to find a way to make them easily accessible and removable. The existing gas stations can be used (after conversion) into charging stations... where you'd pull in swap out the battery... and continue on your way. However a standard universal battery design would be needed for this to work (admittedly no small task to accomplish.) Overall I think you are taking a more pessimistic look at it all. And it's easy to, but I think people really need to be optimistic and adopt a can-do attitude. We need to work this out together... no one individual can bring about a solution. It will be hard to efficiently switch everything from petrol to electric... we'll still need the petrol infrastructure to support those who are at a point in their vehicle buying cycle where they won't be purchasing a new vehicle for years to come. I think the plan needs to be that we demand higher fuel efficiencies to reduce demand... find better ways to maintain safety so that we may lighten up our cars... make serious investments in new battery tech and efforts to make a battery standard so that less solutions are needed to solve the charge time problem. And finally implement vehicle safety inspections/standards to force older unsafe vehicles off the road and simultaneously offer tax breaks and incentives to both manufacture and purchase newer alternative fuels and or electric vehicles. I also forgot to mention that alternative bio fuels are also making great strides... that'd make the effort converting the existing engine technology and distrubutions (gas stations) effort nearly minimal. A GM sponsored company by the name of Coskata is working on bio fuels that are made out of pure waste... sewage, wood chips, weeds, old wood, dead animals etc etc... The bacteria feeds of it and then inr eturn creates a gas that is then converted into a liquid fuel. It's looking promising... not there yet... but promising. And in regards to speculators... that is also a problem. I watched a cspan house committee meeting on this... Democrats are primarily the ones who want to shed light on the dark markets in order to limit the money made off of this unfounded speculation... hopefully this could do something to drop prices in the short term. However it's unclear whether or not it would be effective... that trading couold just move elsewhere where the FTC and SEC has no authority. Edited July 17, 2008 by voteneg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makeshyft Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 @ Jeezie: Well, because the price of oil has been driven up by speculation, it is unlikely that drilling for more will really have an effect on global prices. If speculators are continually allowed to ignore the laws of supply and demand, then there is really no end in sight for high prices. I managed to track down an article relating to this problem, though - as with all news articles - take it with a grain of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus'En'Hitler420 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 The futures market does a very important thing but at the same time, as you have proved, can get wildly out of hand with so much money at stake. Perhaps not global oil prices will fall, but oil prices in the U.S may. Sorry, none for you makeshyft The leases they mention that have already been issued are completely false. Congressional leaders have been grilling the sh*t out of the executives for the past couple of years and no progress has been made in bringing the price down. These democrat leaders and Obama are talking redistribution of wealth from U.S oil execs, so if they are getting these threats made at them, why the hell would they sit there and not drill more if government barriers were not in the way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voteneg Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) The futures market does a very important thing but at the same time, as you have proved, can get wildly out of hand with so much money at stake. Perhaps not global oil prices will fall, but oil prices in the U.S may. Sorry, none for you makeshyft The leases they mention that have already been issued are completely false. Congressional leaders have been grilling the sh*t out of the executives for the past couple of years and no progress has been made in bringing the price down. These democrat leaders and Obama are talking redistribution of wealth from U.S oil execs, so if they are getting these threats made at them, why the hell would they sit there and not drill more if government barriers were not in the way? It's just that the oil in those existing leases aren't as profitable for the oil companies... they lie in smaller and more numerous deposits as opposed to large and single chunks (like ANWR is suspected to be in.) Thus making it more expensive to harvest. Edited July 17, 2008 by voteneg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Picolini Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) Best news this year. Period. Edit: As for the whole "won't effect us for 10 years" thing, as Csaba (I believe) said in the last issue of C&D, that's what they said 10 years ago. Look where we are now. Edited July 17, 2008 by Picolini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makeshyft Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 The futures market does a very important thing but at the same time, as you have proved, can get wildly out of hand with so much money at stake. Perhaps not global oil prices will fall, but oil prices in the U.S may. Sorry, none for you makeshyft Well, it wouldn't be the first time I was out of my depth in a debate. I tip my hat to you, good sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voteneg Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) The futures market does a very important thing but at the same time, as you have proved, can get wildly out of hand with so much money at stake. Perhaps not global oil prices will fall, but oil prices in the U.S may. Sorry, none for you makeshyft Well, it wouldn't be the first time I was out of my depth in a debate. I tip my hat to you, good sir. At least everyone agrees that regulating the speculation market may lower U.S. prices... strangely enough it's the democrats who want to re-regulate it. What's that about congressional roadblocks? Since the de-regulation of the market by republicans backed by companies like Enron the price per barrel has shot up like a rocket. It's in the interest for oil companies to keep the price of gas high, simply because of the false common perception that democrats and pro-enviro people are responsible for high prices... this would convince more people to vote for pro-oil republicans... thus making life easier for big oil. Edited July 17, 2008 by voteneg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus'En'Hitler420 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 (edited) The futures market does a very important thing but at the same time, as you have proved, can get wildly out of hand with so much money at stake. Perhaps not global oil prices will fall, but oil prices in the U.S may. Sorry, none for you makeshyft The leases they mention that have already been issued are completely false. Congressional leaders have been grilling the sh*t out of the executives for the past couple of years and no progress has been made in bringing the price down. These democrat leaders and Obama are talking redistribution of wealth from U.S oil execs, so if they are getting these threats made at them, why the hell would they sit there and not drill more if government barriers were not in the way? It's just that the oil in those existing leases aren't as profitable for the oil companies... they lie in smaller and more numerous deposits as opposed to large and single chunks. Thus making it more expensive to harvest. Then why even expect them to drill in 50 different places and have to make all the equipment necessary to do so? What if they tried to go ahead and drill in these 50 places and it ends up breaking the back of the U.S oil industry? Do they end up drilling at these places and find they only break even with how much it took just to set up the drills? I guess it could be taken any which way, they could be lying, or our government is lying. I feel at such a loss with the state of the world and the truth. Where do you get the truth from now-a-days? The congressional roadblocks are fully in place because we've had a democratic congress in for the past year and a half now and all prices have done is go up. I can see big oil doing those things too, but the pro enviro people do have a hand in the way this is, too. Quite frankly, I believe they keep up the blocks because they have a hand in a much bigger picture, in which the U.S has no place in as a soverign nation. They probalbly issue those leases knowing full well there's no profitability in them to make it look like they care about prices to keep getting elected and spiraling the U.S down the path it's currently set on, while demonizing the oil industry as much as they can. No, I'm not for already rich men, and Harry Reid is an already rich man. I just want affordability and I'm convinced affordability will come with more drilling in ALL the large, single chunk areas. Edited July 17, 2008 by Jesus'En'Hitler420 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now