Printable View
A lot of folks can't understand how we came
To have an oil shortage here in our country.
Well, there's a very simple answer. Nobody bothered to check the oil.
We just didn't know we were getting low.
The reason for that is purely geographical.
Our OIL is located in:
ALASKA
California
Coastal Florida
Coastal Louisiana
Kansas
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
And
Texas
Our DIPSTICKS are located in Washington, DC.
Any Questions ???
Yeah...where'd you get that? Talk radio?
<font color="#CC6600" size="1">[ June 21, 2008 10:41 AM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>
What's the deal with oil?
By Richard I. Gibson ? 2005
This essay appeared originally in the Butte (Montana) Weekly for Dec 21 & 28, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For close to three-quarters of the 20th Century, the United States was the world leader in oil production. What happened? The short answer is that we're over the hill when it comes to oil resources. The U.S. oil production peak came 35 years ago, in 1970 - and the volume sucked from the ground has been declining ever since. In 1970, U.S. production of 9.6 million barrels per day (Mb/d) amounted to 43% of all the oil pumped in the world. In 2004, domestic production averaged 5.4 Mb/d, the lowest since 1950, and added up to only 13% of the world total - despite the fact that our consumption is more than 25% of the world's oil and about 45% of the world's gasoline - and we harbor just 5% of the world's population.
Consumption is the key. With small fluctuations, U.S. oil usage has climbed steadily for the past 50 years. From 5.6 Mb/d in 1949 (6% supplied by imports) to 13.8 Mb/d in 1970 (23% from imports) and 20 Mb/d in 2004 (60% from imports), America's unrelenting thirst for petroleum has driven the consumer end of the market for a hundred years. And by late 2005, consumption had climbed to 20.5 Mb/d, fueled by net imports of 13.2 Mb/d - more than 64% of the total.
How much is 20 million barrels a day? A 42-gallon oil barrel is maybe four feet high. If you laid 20 million of them end to end, they would stretch more than 15,000 miles - every day! In terms of gallons of all oil products, if a 1-gallon can is a foot wide, lined up those cans would extend about 163,000 miles - enough to circle the earth at the equator 6? times - every day.
Not all the oil used goes to make gasoline, of course - there's fuel oil, jet fuel, the chemicals to make all the plastic in the world, as well as lubricants, greases, lipstick and petroleum jelly. But U.S. consumption of gasoline is astonishing - we burn it up at a rate averaging more than 320 million gallons per day, or about 3700 gallons per second, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's enough one-foot-square gallon cans to cover a football field every nine seconds.
So which countries supply our imported oil? Few people can name the top four countries, which together supply about 60% of our crude oil imports. In August 2005, Canada and Mexico were in a virtual tie for first, each providing about 16% of total imported petroleum. Saudi Arabia, which most people would include on the top four list, was No. 3 with about 14%. Venezuela (13%) rounds out the top four sources of American oil. Up-and-coming Nigeria is Number 5, with 11% of our imports. The rest of the top 10, in order, are Angola with 6% and Iraq, Algeria, United Kingdom, and Ecuador, at about 3% of our imports each.
The amount of oil we import from each country fluctuates somewhat from month to month and year to year. For most of the past 5 years, Canada was the clear leader, at about 17-18%, and Saudi Arabia was number 2, with 14-15%. During the 1960s, Venezuela was far and away our greatest supplier.
What can be done about our import dependency? Drill more wells? In 1972 we had 508,000 pumping wells. Many of those wells have dried up or become uneconomical to operate, but despite that, in 2004 about 510,000 wells were pumping oil. We're drilling about as many new wells as we can, both technologically and economically. The problem is the average volume per well - down from almost 19 barrels per well per day in 1972 to about 10.5 barrels per well per day in 2004. The same number of wells pumps only about half the oil of 30 years ago. You can't make a 10-barrel-a-day well pump 1,000 barrels, no matter what you do. There are some enhancement techniques that squeeze the last drops out of an oil field, but those are short-term fixes that do not provide great volumes of crude.
In contrast to America's 10-barrel-per-day average for each well, the few wells in Saudi Arabia average about 6,500 barrels per day per well.
What about ANWR - the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? The controversy rages. As of today, there is no known oil in ANWR - it can't be known until the rocks are drilled. The U.S. Geological Survey, using sophisticated estimation techniques that factor in the geology and other "knowns," gives a best guess for the amount of oil that MAY be in ANWR at 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. That sounds like a lot, but it's less than Prudhoe Bay contained. At about 13 billion barrels, Prudhoe was the largest oil field in North America, but most of its oil has been produced. In contrast, the world's largest oil field, Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, contained about 85 billion barrels, with much remaining.
That guesstimate of 10.4 billion barrels in ANWR works out to 520 days' supply at our current rate of consumption. But in reality, even if it's there, it won't be produced in a whoosh. Any oil will take years to come on-stream, and will be produced over a period of perhaps 20 years. A reasonable production rate over that time would be one million barrels per day - just 5% of today's 20 Mb/d consumption. Given that our rate of consumption is increasing by 4% to 5% each year, all the possible oil in ANWR would do nothing but help keep pace with demand growth. Helpful, but no panacea.
The deep-water Gulf of Mexico offers some possibilities for major oil finds. Such exploration and production is expensive, and once established runs the risk of shut-downs because of hurricane damage, as we know well after the season of 2005. Offshore California has potential, but stringent environmental regulations have reduced exploration there to virtually zero.
Can Montana help? Montana IS helping. Because many of their fields are small, old and largely tapped out, traditional oil-patch states are losing oil production at increasing rates. Texas' production fell by almost 7% between 2004 and 2005 while Louisiana lost not quite 2%; California declined by 2%, and New Mexico lost almost 5% of its production rate. At the same time, Montana, ranking #10 on the list of oil producing states, increased its production by more than 14%, to 88,000 barrels per day in June 2005. That volume is paltry compared to leaders like Louisiana, averaging 1,463,000 barrels per day in 2005, but the Montana rate of increase is dramatic. Compared to 2002, Montana's oil production has grown by a whopping 87%.
The growth in Montana production is also enjoyed by North Dakota, which shares the oil-rich Williston Basin with eastern Montana. A package of rock called the Bakken Formation, laid down around 360 million years ago, is the key to the new production. Averaging just 8 to 12 feet thick, the pay zone is exploited by a relatively new technique called horizontal drilling, which punches the drill along the length of a rock layer rather than straight through it. This exposes much more of the oil-bearing rock to the drill hole, allowing more oil to be extracted. Best estimates by many economists see no end in sight for this increase, and some optimistic folks suggest that Montana could be producing as much as 200,000 barrels per day within 5 years, jumping it to the Number 5 ranking among the states, after Louisiana, Texas, Alaska, and California. It could happen, but without major changes in consumption habits, oil price shocks are likely to be the rule rather than the exception.
Sources: Most statistics in this article are from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Some interesting oil industry statistics - Page 4
Return to Main Oil Statistics Page
?2005 Gibson Consulting
Oil Refineries
The following information on active oil refineries comes from the Energy Information Administration. Total in the US is 149 refineries. For more specifics, such as refinery owner and capacity of individual refineries, go to This Page, click on a state, and then click on "petroleum overview" on the state page. The list is in order of total capacity in 2005. States not listed, such as New York, Florida, and Arizona, do not have any refineries. EIA Information on individual refineries.
Oil refining company quiz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US total refining capacity = 17,125,000 barrels of oil per day. Of this, 19.5 gallons per barrel, or about 44% (the most that can be made) becomes gasoline: 7,535,000 barrels of gasoline, times 42 gallons per barrel = 316,470,000 gallons of gasoline capable of being refined each day. Although most refineries are operating at near capacity (say 95% to 98% of capacity), any shutdown (hurricane or otherwise) obviously affects this total. In March 2005, US gasoline consumption was 320,500,000 gallons per day. You do the math.
UPDATE: According to this EIA page, US gasoline consumption in 2004 averaged 382,400,000 gallons per day - meaning we must import almost 66 million gallons of gasoline each and every day, in addition to imported crude oil.
Come to think of it, I think it's great the Republicans in the dying first ring suburbs killed yet another attempt at light rail.
Republicans are stupid, but the local ones are bottom of the barrel. Chabot and Schmidt anyone? Dumber than a box of rocks. Following in line with the dumbest of all - George Bush.
Obama is right: We cannot drill ourselves out of this problem. We should be thinking about something more than oil company profits.
<font color="#CC6600" size="1">[ June 21, 2008 11:36 AM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>
I'm cheating by using Wikipedia, but...
[edit] United States
United States oil reserves peaked sharply in 1970 after the supergiant Prudhoe Bay field was found in Alaska.
United States oil production also peaked in 1970. By 2005 imports were twice production.United States proven oil reserves declined to a little less than 21 billion barrels (3.3?109 m3) as of 2006 according to the Energy Information Administration, a 46% decline from the 39 billion barrels (6.2?109 m3) it had in 1970 when the huge Alaska North Slope (ANS) reserves were booked. With production of around 5 million barrels per day (790?103 m3/d) as of 2006, this represents about an 11 year supply of oil reserves at current rates of production.
If the United States had to supply its entire demand of 21 million barrels per day (3.3?106 m3/d) without resorting to foreign imports, existing US reserves would last only three years at the current rate of consumption.
No oil fields of similar size to the ANS reserves have been found in the US since 1970. With over 2.3 million wells having been drilled in the US since 1949,[44] there are very few unexplored areas left where a similar size oil field is likely to be found.[citation needed] US oil reserve numbers are very accurate compared to those of most other countries.
As a result of the decline in reserves, United States crude oil production also has been declining for nearly 30 years. Production peaked in 1970 at 9.6 million barrels per day (1.53?106 m3/d), but declined 47% to 5.1 million barrels per day (810?103 m3/d) by 2006. At the same time, US imports of oil and petroleum products increased by 400% from 3.4 million barrels per day (540?103 m3/d) in 1970 to 13.6 million barrels per day (2.16?106 m3/d) in 2006. The largest suppliers of oil and products in 2006 were Canada and Mexico, which supplied 2.3 and 1.7 Mbbl/d (370?103 and 270?103 m3/d), respectively.[45]
Imports of oil and products account for nearly half of the US trade deficit. As of 2007, the Energy Information Agency (EIA) of the US Department of Energy projected that in 2007 oil consumption would rise to 20.9 million barrels per day (3.32?106 m3/d), while oil production would fall to 5.1 million barrels per day (810?103 m3/d), meaning that oil consumption would be nearly four times as high as oil production.[46]
In April 2008, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) released a report giving a new resource assessment of the Bakken Formation underlying portions of Montana and North Dakota. The USGS believes that with new horizontal drilling technology there is somewhere between 3.0 and 4.5 billion barrels (480?106 and 720?106 m3) of recoverable oil remaining to be discovered in this 200,000 square miles (520,000 km?) formation that was initially discovered in 1951. If accurate, this reassessment would make it the largest continuous oil formation ever discovered in the U.S.[47] However, it would represent only a five to seven month supply of oil for the United States at current (2007) rates of consumption.
A 1993 United States Geological Survey (USGS) study indicated at least 4.3 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 11.8 billion (5% probability) barrels (0.9 to 2.5 km?) of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area, with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels (1.7 km?). In addition, in the entire assessment area, which covers not only land under Federal jurisdiction, but also Native lands and adjacent State waters within three miles (5 km), technically recoverable oil is estimated to be at least 5.7 billion (95%) and as much as 16.0 billion (5%) barrels (0.7 to 1.9 km?), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels (1.2 km?). Economically recoverable oil within the Federal lands assuming a market price of $40/barrel (constant 1996 dollars - the highest price included in the USGS study) is estimated to be between 3.4 billion (95%) and 10.4 billion (5%) barrels (0.5 to 1.7 km?), with a mean value of 6.8 billion barrels (1.1 km?).
[edit] Oil shale
Main article: Oil shale reserves
The United States has the largest known deposits of oil shale in the world, according to the Bureau of Land Management and holds an estimated 2,500 gigabarrels of potentially recoverable oil, enough to meet U.S. demand for oil at current rates for 110 years. However, oil shale does not actually contain oil, but a waxy oil precursor known as kerogen. For this reason and because there is not yet any significant commercial production of oil from oil shale in the United States as of 2008, its oil shale reserves do not meet the petroleum industry definition of proven oil reserves.
In Summary, Republicans have jeopardized national security by promoting the "drill more" mentality. We have become more dependent on a limited resource controlled mostly by undemocratic nations. We use more of this limited resource even as our domestic supply diminishes.
Anyone who tells you that environmental wackos and Democrats are responsible for this mess are grossly ill-informed. The Republican party has compromised our national security with its lack of vision toward our energy needs. We will all pay dearly.
The Arab oil embargo (1973 or 1974?) should have been a wake-up call. It wasn't. How many presidents have been in office since 1973?
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush. How many congresses have failed to legislate a solution? 35 years worth of failed policies and no policies at all. The onus falls on both parties, not just one. They are all trash, period.
<font color="#CC6600" size="1">[ June 24, 2008 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Beachcomber ]</font>
Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.
Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.
It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.
We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.
We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.
Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.
The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.
Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy.
I know that some of you may doubt that we face real energy shortages. The 1973 gasoline lines are gone, and our homes are warm again. But our energy problem is worse tonight than it was in 1973 or a few weeks ago in the dead of winter. It is worse because more waste has occurred, and more time has passed by without our planning for the future. And it will get worse every day until we act.
The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce.
The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day and demand increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every nine months, or a new Saudi Arabia every three years. Obviously, this cannot continue.
We must look back in history to understand our energy problem. Twice in the last several hundred years there has been a transition in the way people use energy.
The first was about 200 years ago, away from wood -- which had provided about 90 percent of all fuel -- to coal, which was more efficient. This change became the basis of the Industrial Revolution.
The second change took place in this century, with the growing use of oil and natural gas. They were more convenient and cheaper than coal, and the supply seemed to be almost without limit. They made possible the age of automobile and airplane travel. Nearly everyone who is alive today grew up during this age and we have never known anything different.
Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power.
The world has not prepared for the future. During the 1950s, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940s. During the 1960s, we used twice as much as during the 1950s. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of mankind's previous history.
World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.
I know that many of you have suspected that some supplies of oil and gas are being withheld. You may be right, but suspicions about oil companies cannot change the fact that we are running out of petroleum.
All of us have heard about the large oil fields on Alaska's North Slope. In a few years when the North Slope is producing fully, its total output will be just about equal to two years' increase in our nation's energy demand.
Each new inventory of world oil reserves has been more disturbing than the last. World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can't go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.
But we do have a choice about how we will spend the next few years. Each American uses the energy equivalent of 60 barrels of oil per person each year. Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden.
One choice is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years.
Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste.
We can continue using scarce oil and natural to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process.
If we do not act, then by 1985 we will be using 33 percent more energy than we do today.
We can't substantially increase our domestic production, so we would need to import twice as much oil as we do now. Supplies will be uncertain. The cost will keep going up. Six years ago, we paid $3.7 billion for imported oil. Last year we spent $37 billion -- nearly ten times as much -- and this year we may spend over $45 billion.
Unless we act, we will spend more than $550 billion for imported oil by 1985 -- more than $2,500 a year for every man, woman, and child in America. Along with that money we will continue losing American jobs and becoming increasingly vulnerable to supply interruptions.
Now we have a choice. But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil -- from any country, at any acceptable price.
If we wait, and do not act, then our factories will not be able to keep our people on the job with reduced supplies of fuel. Too few of our utilities will have switched to coal, our most abundant energy source.
We will not be ready to keep our transportation system running with smaller, more efficient cars and a better network of buses, trains and public transportation.
We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country.
If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.
But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time.
That is the concept of the energy policy we will present on Wednesday. Our national energy plan is based on ten fundamental principles.
The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.
The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.
The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.
The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.
The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.
The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.
The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.
The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.
The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.
These ten principles have guided the development of the policy I would describe to you and the Congress on Wednesday.
Our energy plan will also include a number of specific goals, to measure our progress toward a stable energy system.
These are the goals we set for 1985:
--Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.
--Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.
--Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.
--Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply.
--Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.
--Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.
--Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.
We will monitor our progress toward these goals year by year. Our plan will call for stricter conservation measures if we fall behind.
I cant tell you that these measures will be easy, nor will they be popular. But I think most of you realize that a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy.
This plan is essential to protect our jobs, our environment, our standard of living, and our future.
Whether this plan truly makes a difference will be decided not here in Washington, but in every town and every factory, in every home an don every highway and every farm.
I believe this can be a positive challenge. There is something especially American in the kinds of changes we have to make. We have been proud, through our history of being efficient people.
We have been proud of our leadership in the world. Now we have a chance again to give the world a positive example.
And we have been proud of our vision of the future. We have always wanted to give our children and grandchildren a world richer in possibilities than we've had. They are the ones we must provide for now. They are the ones who will suffer most if we don't act.
I've given you some of the principles of the plan.
I am sure each of you will find something you don't like about the specifics of our proposal. It will demand that we make sacrifices and changes in our lives. To some degree, the sacrifices will be painful -- but so is any meaningful sacrifice. It will lead to some higher costs, and to some greater inconveniences for everyone.
But the sacrifices will be gradual, realistic and necessary. Above all, they will be fair. No one will gain an unfair advantage through this plan. No one will be asked to bear an unfair burden. We will monitor the accuracy of data from the oil and natural gas companies, so that we will know their true production, supplies, reserves, and profits.
The citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.
We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly. They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country. If they succeed, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing.
There should be only one test for this program: whether it will help our country.
Other generation of Americans have faced and mastered great challenges. I have faith that meeting this challenge will make our own lives even richer. If you will join me so that we can work together with patriotism and courage, we will again prove that our great nation can lead the world into an age of peace, independence and freedom.
Jimmy Carter, "The President's Proposed Energy Policy." 18 April 1977. Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. XXXXIII, No. 14, May 1, 1977, pp. 418-420.
Fine words in 1977 from an ineffective president. He was in office until 1981, what did he do to implement those ideas? Talk is cheap. President Bush has made numerous comments about our need to free ourselves from the addiction of oil. I don't see you quoting him.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">His answer to free us is to drill more oil here and get it from places from other than the Middle East. That policy is not feasible.Quote:
Originally posted by Beachcomber:
Fine words in 1977 from an ineffective president. He was in office until 1981, what did he do to implement those ideas? Talk is cheap. President Bush has made numerous comments about our need to free ourselves from the addiction of oil. I don't see you quoting him.
Bush hasn't come even remotely close to the remarkably accurate words of Carter in 1977, which is sad because the chickens have come home to roost.
Gae's post is a page out of Bushies energy plan - HEY! Just drill some more! That only works in some parallel universe where people got their heads up their asses.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Ene...nment/bg93.cfm
<font color="#CC6600" size="1">[ June 24, 2008 10:37 AM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>
Ok, Beachcomber, here's Bush's speech. Note, the focus on drilling more and not once was the word "conservation" mentioned. Secondly, he talks about using oil in the short term. Opening up drilling to these new areas will only temporarily ease our pain, not solve our problems. Only gae and trav would make sense of this gobbledy gook:
President Bush Discusses Energy
Rose Garden
Video (Windows)
Presidential Remarks
Audio
En Espa?ol
Fact Sheet: Reducing Gas Prices and Foreign Oil Dependence
In Focus: Energy
10:30 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I want to thank Secretary Kempthorne and Secretary Bodman for joining me. For many Americans, there is no more pressing concern than the price of gasoline. Truckers and farmers and small business owners have been hit especially hard. Every American who drives to work, purchases food, or ships a product has felt the effect. And families across our country are looking to Washington for a response.
High oil prices are at the root of high gasoline prices. And behind those prices is the basic law of supply and demand. In recent years, the world's demand for oil has grown dramatically. Meanwhile, the supply of oil has grown much more slowly. As a result, oil prices have risen sharply, and that increase has been reflected at American gasoline pumps. Now much of the oil consumed in America comes from abroad -- that's what's changed dramatically over the last couple of decades. Some of that energy comes from unstable regions and unfriendly regimes. This makes us more vulnerable to supply shocks and price spikes beyond our control -- and that puts both our economy and our security at risk.
In the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies. My administration has worked with Congress to invest in gas-saving technologies like advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. We've mandated a large expansion in the use of alternative fuels. We've raised fuel efficiency standards to ambitious new levels. With all these steps, we are bringing America closer to the day when we can end our addiction to oil, which will allow us to become better stewards of the environment.
In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil. And that means we need to increase supply, especially here at home. So my administration has repeatedly called on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal -- and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction. Congress must face a hard reality: Unless Members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful levels -- or even higher -- our nation must produce more oil. And we must start now. So this morning, I ask Democratic Congressional leaders to move forward with four steps to expand American oil and gasoline production.
First, we should expand American oil production by increasing access to the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS. Experts believe that the OCS could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil. That would be enough to match America's current oil production for almost ten years. The problem is that Congress has restricted access to key parts of the OCS since the early 1980s. Since then, advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS that is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills. With these advances -- and a dramatic increase in oil prices -- congressional restrictions on OCS exploration have become outdated and counterproductive.
Republicans in Congress have proposed several promising bills that would lift the legislative ban on oil exploration in the OCS. I call on the House and the Senate to pass good legislation as soon as possible. This legislation should give the states the option of opening up OCS resources off their shores, provide a way for the federal government and states to share new leasing revenues, and ensure that our environment is protected. There's also an executive prohibition on exploration in the OCS. When Congress lifts the legislative ban, I will lift the executive prohibition.
Second, we should expand oil production by tapping into the extraordinary potential of oil shale. Oil shale is a type of rock that can produce oil when exposed to heat or other process[es]. In one major deposit -- the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming -- there lies the equivalent of about 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That's more than three times larger than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. And it can be fully recovered -- and if it can be fully recovered it would be equal to more than a century's worth of currently projected oil imports.
For many years, the high cost of extracting oil from shale exceeded the benefit. But today the calculus is changing. Companies have invested in technology to make oil shale production more affordable and efficient. And while the cost of extracting oil from shale is still more than the cost of traditional production, it is also less than the current market price of oil. This makes oil shale a highly promising resource.
Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress are standing in the way of further development. In last year's omnibus spending bill, Democratic leaders inserted a provision blocking oil shale leasing on federal lands. That provision can be taken out as easily as it was slipped in -- and Congress should do so immediately.
Third, we should expand American oil production by permitting exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. When ANWR was created in 1980, Congress specifically reserved a portion for energy development. In 1995, Congress passed legislation allowing oil production in this small fraction of ANWR's 19 million acres. With a drilling footprint of less than 2,000 acres -- less than one-tenth of 1 percent of this distant Alaskan terrain -- America could produce an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil. That is roughly the equivalent of two decades of imported oil from Saudi Arabia. Yet my predecessor vetoed this bill.
In the years since, the price of oil has increased seven-fold, and the price of American gasoline has more than tripled. Meanwhile, scientists have developed innovative techniques to reach ANWR's oil with virtually no impact on the land or local wildlife. I urge members of Congress to allow this remote region to bring enormous benefits to the American people.
And finally, we need to expand and enhance our refining capacity. Refineries are the critical link between crude oil and the gasoline and diesel fuel that drivers put in their tanks. With recent changes in the makeup of our fuel supply, upgrades in our refining capacity are urgently needed. Yet it has been nearly 30 years since our nation built a new refinery, and lawsuits and red tape have made it extremely costly to expand or modify existing refineries. The result is that America now imports millions of barrels of fully-refined gasoline from abroad. This imposes needless costs on American consumers. It deprives American workers of good jobs. And it needs to change.
So today I'm proposing measures to expedite the refinery permitting process. Under the reformed process that I propose, challenges to refineries and other energy project permits must be brought before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals within 60 days of the issuance of a permit decision. Congress should also empower the Secretary of Energy to establish binding deadlines for permit decisions, and to ensure that the various levels of approval required in the refinery permitting process are handled in a timely way.
With these four steps, we will take pressure off gas prices over time by expanding the amount of American-made oil and gasoline. We will strengthen our national security by reducing our reliance on foreign oil. We will benefit American workers by keeping our nation competitive in the global economy -- and by creating good jobs in construction, and engineering, and refining, maintenance, and many other areas.
The proposals I've outlined will take years to have their full impact. There is no excuse for delay -- as a matter of fact, it's a reason to move swiftly. I know the Democratic leaders have opposed some of these policies in the past. Now that their opposition has helped drive gas prices to record levels, I ask them to reconsider their positions. If congressional leaders leave for the 4th of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act. And Americans will rightly ask how high oil -- how high gas prices have to rise before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something about it.
I know this is a trying time for our families, but our country has faced similar strains before and we've overcome them together -- and we can do that again. With faith in the innovative spirit of our people and a commitment to results in Washington, we will meet the energy challenges we face -- and keep our economy the strongest, most vibrant, and most hopeful in the world.
Thank you for your time.
Makes sense to me. You know what I find amusing about protestors who come to the beaches periodically demanding that there be no drilling in the Gulf? How do they get there? A big, gas guzzling van. Where did their gas come from? Can you say Hypocrite? Tools of Al Gore and Cheryl Crow and all the others who presume to tell everyone else what we cannot do or should do while being some of the biggest energy wasters of all. I don't want our beaches here fouled by off shore drilling either, but China and Cuba are already drilling off Key West now and we don't. That makes a lot of sense. If their operations cause an oil slick to foul the whole west coast of Florida I guess that is somehow better than if we did it ourselves...
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 18, 2008
President Bush Discusses Energy
Rose Garden
Video (Windows)
Presidential Remarks
Audio
En Espa?ol
Fact Sheet: Reducing Gas Prices and Foreign Oil Dependence
In Focus: Energy
10:30 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I want to thank Secretary Kempthorne and Secretary Bodman for joining me. For many Americans, there is no more pressing concern than the price of gasoline. Truckers and farmers and small business owners have been hit especially hard. Every American who drives to work, purchases food, or ships a product has felt the effect. And families across our country are looking to Washington for a response.
High oil prices are at the root of high gasoline prices. And behind those prices is the basic law of supply and demand. In recent years, the world's demand for oil has grown dramatically. Meanwhile, the supply of oil has grown much more slowly. As a result, oil prices have risen sharply, and that increase has been reflected at American gasoline pumps. Now much of the oil consumed in America comes from abroad -- that's what's changed dramatically over the last couple of decades. Some of that energy comes from unstable regions and unfriendly regimes. This makes us more vulnerable to supply shocks and price spikes beyond our control -- and that puts both our economy and our security at risk.
In the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies. My administration has worked with Congress to invest in gas-saving technologies like advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. We've mandated a large expansion in the use of alternative fuels. We've raised fuel efficiency standards to ambitious new levels. With all these steps, we are bringing America closer to the day when we can end our addiction to oil, which will allow us to become better stewards of the environment.
In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil. And that means we need to increase supply, especially here at home. So my administration has repeatedly called on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal -- and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction. Congress must face a hard reality: Unless Members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful levels -- or even higher -- our nation must produce more oil. And we must start now. So this morning, I ask Democratic Congressional leaders to move forward with four steps to expand American oil and gasoline production.
First, we should expand American oil production by increasing access to the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS. Experts believe that the OCS could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil. That would be enough to match America's current oil production for almost ten years. The problem is that Congress has restricted access to key parts of the OCS since the early 1980s. Since then, advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS that is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills. With these advances -- and a dramatic increase in oil prices -- congressional restrictions on OCS exploration have become outdated and counterproductive.
Republicans in Congress have proposed several promising bills that would lift the legislative ban on oil exploration in the OCS. I call on the House and the Senate to pass good legislation as soon as possible. This legislation should give the states the option of opening up OCS resources off their shores, provide a way for the federal government and states to share new leasing revenues, and ensure that our environment is protected. There's also an executive prohibition on exploration in the OCS. When Congress lifts the legislative ban, I will lift the executive prohibition.
Second, we should expand oil production by tapping into the extraordinary potential of oil shale. Oil shale is a type of rock that can produce oil when exposed to heat or other process[es]. In one major deposit -- the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming -- there lies the equivalent of about 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That's more than three times larger than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. And it can be fully recovered -- and if it can be fully recovered it would be equal to more than a century's worth of currently projected oil imports.
For many years, the high cost of extracting oil from shale exceeded the benefit. But today the calculus is changing. Companies have invested in technology to make oil shale production more affordable and efficient. And while the cost of extracting oil from shale is still more than the cost of traditional production, it is also less than the current market price of oil. This makes oil shale a highly promising resource.
Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress are standing in the way of further development. In last year's omnibus spending bill, Democratic leaders inserted a provision blocking oil shale leasing on federal lands. That provision can be taken out as easily as it was slipped in -- and Congress should do so immediately.
Third, we should expand American oil production by permitting exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. When ANWR was created in 1980, Congress specifically reserved a portion for energy development. In 1995, Congress passed legislation allowing oil production in this small fraction of ANWR's 19 million acres. With a drilling footprint of less than 2,000 acres -- less than one-tenth of 1 percent of this distant Alaskan terrain -- America could produce an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil. That is roughly the equivalent of two decades of imported oil from Saudi Arabia. Yet my predecessor vetoed this bill.
In the years since, the price of oil has increased seven-fold, and the price of American gasoline has more than tripled. Meanwhile, scientists have developed innovative techniques to reach ANWR's oil with virtually no impact on the land or local wildlife. I urge members of Congress to allow this remote region to bring enormous benefits to the American people.
And finally, we need to expand and enhance our refining capacity. Refineries are the critical link between crude oil and the gasoline and diesel fuel that drivers put in their tanks. With recent changes in the makeup of our fuel supply, upgrades in our refining capacity are urgently needed. Yet it has been nearly 30 years since our nation built a new refinery, and lawsuits and red tape have made it extremely costly to expand or modify existing refineries. The result is that America now imports millions of barrels of fully-refined gasoline from abroad. This imposes needless costs on American consumers. It deprives American workers of good jobs. And it needs to change.
So today I'm proposing measures to expedite the refinery permitting process. Under the reformed process that I propose, challenges to refineries and other energy project permits must be brought before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals within 60 days of the issuance of a permit decision. Congress should also empower the Secretary of Energy to establish binding deadlines for permit decisions, and to ensure that the various levels of approval required in the refinery permitting process are handled in a timely way.
With these four steps, we will take pressure off gas prices over time by expanding the amount of American-made oil and gasoline. We will strengthen our national security by reducing our reliance on foreign oil. We will benefit American workers by keeping our nation competitive in the global economy -- and by creating good jobs in construction, and engineering, and refining, maintenance, and many other areas.
The proposals I've outlined will take years to have their full impact. There is no excuse for delay -- as a matter of fact, it's a reason to move swiftly. I know the Democratic leaders have opposed some of these policies in the past. Now that their opposition has helped drive gas prices to record levels, I ask them to reconsider their positions. If congressional leaders leave for the 4th of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act. And Americans will rightly ask how high oil -- how high gas prices have to rise before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something about it.
I know this is a trying time for our families, but our country has faced similar strains before and we've overcome them together -- and we can do that again. With faith in the innovative spirit of our people and a commitment to results in Washington, we will meet the energy challenges we face -- and keep our economy the strongest, most vibrant, and most hopeful in the world.
Thank you for your time.
END 10:42 A.M. EDT
Printer-Friendly Version Email This Page
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">He wants to drill. Period. This will do nothing for the short term. It will do little for the long term. In short he wants to drill, drill, drill for the benefit of the oil companies.Quote:
Originally posted by Beachcomber:
Makes sense to me. You know what I find amusing about protestors who come to the beaches periodically demanding that there be no drilling in the Gulf? How do they get there? A big, gas guzzling van. Where did their gas come from? Can you say Hypocrite? Tools of Al Gore and Cheryl Crow and all the others who presume to tell everyone else what we cannot do or should do while being some of the biggest energy wasters of all. I don't want our beaches here fouled by off shore drilling either, but China and Cuba are already drilling off Key West now and we don't. That makes a lot of sense. If their operations cause an oil slick to foul the whole west coast of Florida I guess that is somehow better than if we did it ourselves...
Open the areas for the oil companies, the oil will not be forthcoming for quite some time.
Again...he said *nothing* about conservation. We need to use less, and the fact that he continually leaves that out of the equation, we are screwed.
And some color on Bush's "push" for alternative energy:
A Great New American Enterprise
Posted July 27, 2006 | 12:10 AM (EST)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read More: BP p.l.c., Safeway Inc. , Breaking Home News
In his State of the Union address, President Bush rightly decried our addiction to oil. Our reliance on foreign oil has risen steadily since 1973, and today the U.S. consumes roughly 25% of the world's oil. Our dependence on foreign suppliers, many in politically unstable regions, leaves our economy vulnerable to an oil shock which might result from escalating tensions between Syria, Israel and Iran, or from ethnic tensions in Nigeria. And although the U.S. does not purchase oil directly from Iran, the number three oil producer globally, our insatiable consumption drives up prices and bolsters the Islamist theocracy's hold on power.
Although President Bush pledged to reduce Middle East oil imports 75% by 2025, this was just talk. His Advanced Energy Initiative requests less than $500 million for alternatives to oil, a relative drop in the bucket. It also pushes for drilling in ANWR, which the Department of Energy estimates won't add one drop to domestic oil production before 2013, and will do little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Meanwhile, small-budget conservation programs with a proven track record of success are on the cutting block. And the administration's investments in alternative energy pale compared to the breaks they've given the oil industry. President Bush is confronting our addiction to oil like an alcoholic who tries to kick the habit by adding ice to his drink.
Buzz up!on Yahoo!A leader with real vision would see the opportunity behind the looming crisis, and rush to embrace it. As global demand for energy outstrips production, new markets for alternative energy technology will open up. U.S. innovators are poised to claim these markets, if they receive the funding necessary to push cutting-edge technology out of the laboratory. Researchers at New Mexico State University and Wake Forest have put nanotechnology to use creating organic solar cells, which have myriad consumer, commercial, and even military applications. University of Minnesota professor Lanny Schmidt has developed technology which may bring fuel-cell powered transportation to market years earlier than previously thought, by extracting hydrogen from ethanol. Of course ethanol is already in millions of cars today, and unlike traditional corn or sugar-derived ethanol, cellulosic ethanol can be produced from biomass (corn husks, switchgrass, etc.) more cheaply, cleanly and efficiently than gasoline.
An energy policy based on biomass benefits American farmers as well as American innovators. Moreover, if ethanol from biomass can easily be converted to hydrogen for fuel-cell power, biomass can literally drive everything, from our cars to our furnaces to the generators which power our electrical grid --- if organic solar cells don't render the electrical grid obsolete. And for icing on the cake, replacing our existing carbon-intensive fuels with these zero-carbon and carbon-neutral technologies will slow the effects of global warming.
Skeptics will argue that we could never produce enough ethanol to equal our gasoline consumption. But one major industrialized nation already has done it: Brazil is on track to free itself from dependence on imported oil by the end of the year. Indeed, Brazil's sugar-based ethanol industry has been a victim of its own success, with demand for the fuel outstripping the supply. The road of revolutionary change is always rocky; the market in gasoline suffered precipitous swings between scarcity and glut on its way to becoming the dominant economic force in the world. Breaking our addiction to oil will bring some temporary withdrawal symptoms. But the world is at or near peak oil production (and coal and natural gas and uranium . . .); it is not a question of whether we adopt an alternative energy strategy, but when. And the sooner the better.
A race is starting to develop the cheapest, cleanest, most efficient means of renewable energy production. In the end, we all win with a cleaner, greener earth, but the first to the finish line will reap an economic windfall as well. America ushered in both the nuclear age and the space age: it's time to put the full faith and credit of the United States behind the technology boom of the 21st century.
(Updated to underscore the distinction between cellulosic ethanol and traditional corn and sugar-derived ethanol).
Co-written by Coleen Rowley, Candidate for Congress in Minnesota's 2nd District and David Bailey, researcher and writer for the campaign.
SOTU: Bush Wanted Renewable Energy Cuts?
Bush said: ?The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly 10 billion dollars to develop cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources ? and we are on the threshold of incredible advances.?
FACT ? BUSH PUSHED FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY CUTS IN LATEST BUDGET: President Bush?s FY06 budget request for the U.S. Department of Energy?s (DOE) energy efficiency and renewable energy programs envisioned ?reductions totaling nearly $50 million - an overall cut of roughly four percent.? [Renewable Energy Access, 2/28/05]
FACT ? BUSH REJECTED BIPARTISAN PLAN TO SET GOALS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY: Last year, President Bush ?oppose[d] efforts to include a national renewable energy requirement for utilities in Congress? broad energy legislation.? According to the Union of Concerned Scientists it ?is a cost-effective, market-based policy that requires electric utilities to gradually increase their use of renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, and bioenergy,? to between 10 and 20 percent by 2020. A 10 percent standard ?would have virtually no impact on electricity prices and could save consumers as much as $13.2 billion.? [Reuters, 2/10/05; Union of Concerned Scientists; Union of Concerned Scientists]
FACT ? BUSH ENERGY BILL CONTAINED LITTLE ON RENEWABLE ENERGY: The energy bill supported and signed by President Bush dropped a provision that would have required utilities ?to generate at least 10 percent of their electricity through renewable fuels by 2020.? [New York Times, 7/26/05]
Green New Deal is the only option left to solve this type of crisis. George Mandell has explained this in his article what is green new deal.