Ten years to get one drop is a BIG LIE

The common thinking that it would take ten years to get one drop of oil if we began drilling now is a huge lie.
Take the most difficult scenario to drill and retrieve oil from.
Lets say in the middle of the ocean at a depth of over 4,000 feet. difficult enough for ya?

he Marco Polo field is located in Green Canyon block 608, 160 miles south of New Orleans. It is fully owned and operated by Anadarko Petroleum. The field was discovered in April 2000 and lies in water 4,300ft deep. It produced its first oil in March 2004. The field is drained by six delineation wells with an average net pay of 292ft. It is expected to produce approximately 50,000 barrels of oil and 150 million ft³ of gas per day.

www.offshore-technology.com...

These people discovered the oil and gas, constructed one of the largest drilling, floating platforms ever! and began pumping it in 4 years!

Why will it take ten years in Alaska??????????

Originally posted by Fathom
Why will it take ten years in Alaska??????????

It won't. And people will see that if we are allowed to start.

Truth is...The Dem's (and some spineless Republicans) just don't want us to have it. They would rather the country go down the toilet because it helps them politically.

I dont think I ever heard TEN years. Ive heard 3-5 years numerous times, wich seems to tie in with your post saying that it took that one crew 4 years.

Obama has said this NUMEROUS times.

I'll get some links together for you if you can't find them yourself.



***Edit to add that this number has also been mentioned several times by Pelosi and Reed***

[edit on 23-7-2008 by nyk537]

Your forgetting a big step in the production.. refineries.

We can pull it out of the earth.. but the US does not have the mass refineries used to process the crude into the usable oil we need.

The only option we will have is to ship it overseas.. have it refined, then ship it back. That isn't done in a short period of time.

The ten years part factors in the time it would take us to construct the numerous refineries before we would start seeing profit past the money and oil expended to produce our own capabilities.

I do agree it would be less than the literal "10 years" , but it will still not be as quick as you think. I figure 5-7 years on the quick side of things.

There is alot more to the process than just drilling a hole in the ground.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by TwiTcHomatic]

It would have already started pumping if Bush had used his political capital to do it at anytime in the past 7 1/2 years. Instead of trying to slow America's use of foreign oil at anytime until now, he decided to engage Iraq then. Perhaps he was under the impression that the Iraqis would treat us as liberators (or whatever else BS) and that the Iraqi oil would be freely flowing by now.

I find it very strange that as soon as Bush II lifted his father's Executive Ban on offshore drilling, the price for a barrel of crude dropped from a record $147.27 a barrel on July 11 to around 127 a barrel as we speak. That is about a 14% drop in less than two weeks.

If ending our dependance on foreign oil is such a priority now, why else besides politics, did Bush II wait to rescind the ban? He is fully aware of Executive Order's and their use.
www.archives.gov...

2008 - E.O. 13454 - E.O. 13466 (13 Executive orders issued)
2007 - E.O. 13422 - E.O. 13453 (31 Executive orders issued)
2006 - E.O. 13395 - E.O. 13421 (27 Executive orders issued)
2005 - E.O. 13369 - E.O. 13394 (26 Executive orders issued)
2004 - E.O. 13324 - E.O. 13368 (45 Executive orders issued)
2003 - E.O. 13283 - E.O. 13323 (41 Executive orders issued)
2002 - E.O. 13252 - E.O. 13282 (31 Executive orders issued)
2001 - E.O. 13198 - E.O. 13251 (54 Executive orders issued)

Why not include an Oil Drilling executive order among the 268 Executive Orders he has signed while in office? Why blow billions of dollars in Iraq to get at their oil, when we could have just opened up ANWR? I am sure that if Bush II had said after 911, "We need to break our dependance on Foreign Oil, we are opening up our shores and ANWR." People would have blindly followed, the same way they did with the Patriot Act, and Iraq. Or spending the billions in Iraq, here at home on alternative energy sources.

In my opinion, the 'drill, drill, drill mentality' is all about political theater. Unfortunately, many American Citizens are incapable of seeing this for themselves.
DocMoreau


[edit on 23/7/2008 by DocMoreau]

Why will it take ten years in Alaska??? a few reasons and other points to consider.

The oil in ANWR would reduce gas prices between 1 and 4 cents per gallon.

Don't Expect Too Much From ANWR

Last month the Department of Energy produced a report titled, “Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” (Hat tip, Menzie Chinn) The report makes two points that indicate that drilling in ANWR won’t do much to decrease energy prices any time soon.

First, the report states that drilling wouldn’t add to domestic production for at least 10 years, and peak production can’t be expected until the 2020s. Meanwhile, under the middle-of-the-road estimate for output oil prices would be expected to decline by only 75 cents per barrel in 2025. If there’s less oil than expected in ANWR the reduction in prices would be 41 cents per barrel in 2026, and if there’s more than expected the drop in prices is seen around $1.44 per barrel in 2027. That would translate into a reduction in gas prices between just one cent and four cents, according to an analysis prepared by Congress’s Joint Economic Committee.

As regards Offshore drilling, here are some Q and A to consider.

Offshore Drilling Questions - When? - How Much?

1. When will the new oil arrive? Brutal truth: maybe in a decade for the early oil, though the EIA’s quote above indicates more like two decades before enough oil arrives to matter. The industry doesn’t have any identified offshore fields like Prudhoe Bay, our all-time largest producer, to come on line quickly. Exploration takes time. Drilling takes time, when you can get a drill. Building infrastructure takes time. Delays are commonplace.

2. How much new oil will arrive then? No one can say conclusively. Think in terms of one to two million barrels per day by 2025-2030. But now the world consumes 86 million a day, the US consumes 20 million, imports 13 million, produces only 7 million (see Figs. 1 and 2). Offshore clearly won’t be a savior.

3. Where are the rigs? The personnel? Deepwater rigs are already reserved several years in advance; in a few years supply may be even tighter as Brazil’s offshore drilling increases; new rigs for offshore waters take years to build. Each rig and crew will cost much more than during previous years, so no price relief there.

This chart shows the best-case scenario of the effect that ALL off-shore AND ANWR drilling would have in our oil production. It's that little bump out there by 2040.



Fig. 2: Best-case production profile if all offlimits federal lands were opened to drilling. From article by Dr. Kyriacos Zygourakis, May 5, 2008 Peak Oil Review.

So, if we had done this 20 years ago, we still wouldn't have noticed it.

The picture that George Bush (and company) wants to paint in the people's heads is that this is some kind of "savior" that will solve our oil crisis. And if we elect John McCain (who just one month ago was against lifting the ban) he will make sure to follow through on the president's (and the people's) wishes.

The truth is, if drilling in ANWR and Offshore would have made a difference, it would have been done ages ago.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Excellent post heretic.

I was trying to find the numbers.. but its something like we consume 4-8 barrels for every barrel we pull out of the ground...

It will still be years before we were to "feel relief" from this proposal.

Bush is just trying to save face at the end of his reign.

Bush the oil savior... I think I threw up in my mouth a little.

And what exactly will standing by and doing nothing do for us again?

Benevolent Heretic...

What's so bad about 3-4 cents a gallon cheaper gas? What's so bad about the jobs that will be created by the new drilling? What's so bad about us keeping some of this oil money we're spending within our borders (even if it is only a few %...that's a lot of $$)?

reply to post by TwiTcHomatic


Thank you for bringing it up so I didn't have to. You are right. I have said before numerous times. I have worked in the oilfield for 8 years, I know how that stuff works. Until the US increases its refining capacity, nothing will change.

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
What's so bad about 3-4 cents a gallon cheaper gas?

Oh, there's nothing wrong with it. But is that what the drilling proponents among the populace are expecting? 1-4 cents a gallon relief? I think I'd just as well have the "psychological relief" than taking a chance on destroying the ecology of a WILDLIFE REFUGE and the oceans and coral reefs.

ANWR:





OffShore Drilling Threatens Deep Water Coral Reefs

Thursday, 3 July 2008

Scientists are just beginning to explore deep-water coral reefs, possibly millions of years old, that stretch from North Carolina to Florida. They form pristine oases, alive with fish, crabs and weird creatures that one researcher says "look like Dr. Seuss went crazy down there."
...
President Bush also called last month for more offshore oil and gas exploration. A federal moratorium now prohibits drilling along most of the U.S. coastline until 2012, and political opposition in North Carolina remains strong. But momentum to lift the ban is growing with the price of gasoline.

I'm all for more jobs for US citizens, but I'd rather have the ones back that have been shipped overseas in the last 8 years, than create new ones by raping the environment... And for 1-4 cents a gallon? I'm willing to pay the extra to prevent this environmental disaster. Besides, what makes you think these jobs would go to US citizens? Someone else is sure to contract to do it cheaper.

People don't think about the impact of this. They don't know. All they know is that they want cheaper gas.

Do you know who we import most of our oil from?

Source

1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil

Stuff to think about.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Ya... Canada exports so much oil to the United States (which we are now obligated to do through NAFTA), we actually have to import foreign oil as well. I guess that what friends are for, especially when the Prime Minister is in GW's pocket.

I think the big issue in getting oil out of ANWAR is shipping it somewhere. The Northern passage still gets locked up with ice, and I bet the logistics of tying into the Alaska pipeline would be somewhat onerous. So, sure you could get it out of the ground in 3-4 years. Then what?

You're drinking the koolaid on Anwar Benovelent Heretic. They are not going to destroy a wild refuge for this oil. I've seen the pictures that you've likely seen of the pristine natural habitat that is supposedly going to be affected. I've also seen photographs of the actual area where they're wanting to drill...it's a barren wasteland. The only wildlife that is threatened is the mosquito population.

The truth about Anwar

Honestly, I don't know if this page is accurate because I've never been to ANWAR. I'm guessing you haven't either. I do know that I've seen pictures of the pipelines which were supposedly going to wipe out the animal population in the areas...pictures with the animals huddling up to the pipe to keep warm through the cold winter.

Your coral reef argument is a good one, but I've also read the counterpoint on that one. They have drilling techniques now that can avoid hurting the reefs. I have a meeting in 3 minutes so I can't dig for sources at the time, but one I read mentioned a technique of drilling miles away where the coral isn't an issue and then drilling horizontally into the oil field.

Completely making the oil off limits due to a wildlife refuge or a coral reef is not the answer. I'm all for putting restrictions on the drilling to make sure it's environmentally safe, but the drilling still needs to happen.

Blue, You have good points and I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle. But MY point is that people aren't taking the entirety of this project into account. That's all. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't drill. I'm saying we need to look at the whole picture before deciding.

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I've also seen photographs of the actual area where they're wanting to drill...it's a barren wasteland.

Have you considered how they're going to get there? Their equipment? Is everything just going to be dropped in that one tiny spot by helicopter? What about roads, housing, the pipeline, vehicles. Not to mention the pollution caused by the operation itself.

Pollution at Prudhoe Bay:





Caribou Migration

The next day a few of us flew from Kaktovik to Deadhorse, the “town” at the center of the Prudhoe Bay oil fields. The oil fields lie just to the west of the Canning River, which marks the western boundary of the Arctic Refuge. As we descended into Deadhorse, I noticed a brown layer of smog in the air above the oil fields. It was more like flying into Los Angeles than Alaska’s Arctic. The departure from the airplane into the heart of the largest industrial site on the planet (over 1,000 square miles of development, 100’s of miles of roads, and growing) was the rudest awakening of my life. After nearly three weeks of hearing nothing but the sounds of the wind, the river, the animals and birds, and the sound of my companions’ voices, the sound of heavy equipment was an assault to the senses.

I knew right then and there that we cannot let the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge meet the same fate as had befallen the area around Prudhoe Bay. After all, the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is the only 5% of Alaska’s North Slope that is protected from development. The other 95% is either currently producing oil or will be available for future development. Where do we draw the line?

If I'm drinking Cherry Kool-aid, You're drinking the grape:

The 2,000-acre limitation only applies to “surface acreage covered by production and support facilities.” It doesn’t apply to seismic or other exploration activities, which have forever altered the arctic environment to the west. It doesn’t include gravel mines or roads. Since it applies only to “surface acreage,” the 2,000-acre limitation does not apply to pipelines that are elevated above the tundra - only to the vertical supports that actually touch the ground.

The Alpine oil field to the west of Prudhoe Bay contains 37 miles of pipelines. If we apply the oil industry’s “new math,” that would use up less than one-quarter of an acre. Paul Krugman of the New York Times recently calculated that his work “impact” is only a few square inches – the bottom of the legs on his desk and chair and the soles of his shoes. The rest of his office is pristine wilderness. Theoretically, British Petroleum or Exxon could blanket the Refuge with 296,000 miles of pipeline and still not exceed the 2000-acre limitation.

Source

It doesn't matter if it will take 10 years or 2 weeks, and reduce price by 1 penny or $3 and it doesn't matter if there is zero environmental impact or if the process totally destroys an area... it's a bad idea.

If more drilling is done, then nothing will be done to break the cycle, and the industrial nations will continue to be based on petroleum, which is a finite resource.

So in some X years, we'll be right were we are now, only worse, because now we at least have some reserve left that can be used to support the economy while R&D is done to get around the ultimate problem.

There is little enough chance that anything meaningful is going to be done as it is, given the attitude of "profit now, above and beyond and to the exclusion of everything else" that is so prevalent. But sure as hell if a bunch of new oil resources are tapped nothing will.

More drilling just moves the problem, it does not solve it. And the later a problem is solved, the more expensive and painful the solution is.

Bad, bad, BAD idea.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
I dont think I ever heard TEN years. Ive heard 3-5 years numerous times, wich seems to tie in with your post saying that it took that one crew 4 years.

This is 4 years in an underwater, offshore environment! it should take half this long on land!

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
More drilling just moves the problem, it does not solve it. And the later a problem is solved, the more expensive and painful the solution is.

Bad, bad, BAD idea.

Why can't we pursue both roads? Look around. You can blame a good portion of the hardship we're going through on the high price of oil. Not drilling and pursuing only alternative sources isn't going to fix things tomorrow either. We need to follow both roads and if the alternative energy road leads to eden, then we can sell our extra oil to other countries. If it doesn't pay off, we have more oil to sustain us for a few more decades until the alternative energy road yields fruit.

reply to post by BlueTriangle


Because if the "drill more" path is followed, you can bet your hat that the "R&D to solve the real problem" path will be ignored... as it has been for 30 years already.

Politicians and corporate types being what they are (and far too often the same people), unless they must pursue real solutions as a matter of their own self-interest, they won't.

Which is why, even though now the problem is becoming acute, I don't have much hope that any real work to solve the problem will be done... it isn't yet to the point where the people who profit from the way it is see it in their best interest to support the real work necessary.

Too much genuflecting at the alter of immediate profit for that to happen yet.

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
We need to follow both roads

And how long have we known this and what has been done about it? How many years have we known that oil is a non-renewable resource and that we need to look into alternatives? But still, we haven't done squat. I agree we need to look at alternatives, but it seems that as long as we're sucking at Big Oil's teat, we have absolutely no incentive to look elsewhere.

OMS makes an excellent point about just moving the problem. Because if we drill offshore or in ANWR, all our energy money and resources are going to be spent getting that oil out and NOW. Alternative energy will be put on the back burner.

Edit: As OMS just said.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]