News Will lifting oil drilling bans in the U.S. lower the price of oil?

[Mental Gridlock]

If/when ANWR opens, I plan on getting into the petroleum industry myself.

ANWR can't be opened for oil exploitation because it's a nature preserve.

http://arctic.fws.gov/

 

[mheslep]

Nuclear power has some major bad consequences because of the potential for disaster.[1], and especially all the nuclear waste generated which creates a problem for mankind for thousands of years.[2]

1 www.cnn.com/interactive/asianow/9910/history.nuclear.disaster/dates.exclude.html[/URL]

2 [PLAIN]http://gdi.ce.cmu.edu/gd/education/edradiocase.html

Note that in the US at least, no deaths have ever been attributed to commercial nuclear accidents. Second, though waste is a complicated problem, source [2] does not support your claim of 'problem for mankind.. thousands of years'.

 

[mheslep]

ANWR can't be opened for oil exploitation because it's a nature preserve.

http://arctic.fws.gov/

So? As your link states, ANWR is 1.5 million acres. The proposed drilling requires only a few dozen acres.

 

[WarPhalange]

Your house probably uses something like 500sqft of land if you have a lawn. It's okay, I'm only going to use one or two to put an outhouse there.

What do you say?

 

[mheslep]

So? As your link states, ANWR is 1.5 million acres. The proposed drilling requires only a few dozen acres.

Your house probably uses something like 500sqft of land if you have a lawn. It's okay, I'm only going to use one or two to put an outhouse there.

What do you say?

How do you even remotely compare the two? If people actually lived there and had a stake in the land in question, and they objected, perhaps you'd have a point. There is nobody, you don't. You may also want to check your math in making those comparisons. 100/1.5 million vs 10:500. Or, go up there. Dropping yourself randomly into ANWR, you could easily spend a lifetime random walking and never even lay eyes on the proposed drilling rigs.

 

[wildman]

Once again. ANWR contains less than 15 bbls (50% prob), a lot less than the OCS. While it once again will not hurt, it is not going to affect the price of oil in any significant manner either. The big thing about ANWR is that it is relatively cheap oil so the profits are much higher than in the OCS (where for many wells, the profits are near zero for even $100 a barrel oil).

 

[Astronuc]

This probably has a bigger and certainly an immediate impact of the price of oil.

http://news.yahoo.com/story/nm/20080812/us_nm/usa_oil_demand_dc;_ylt=AmTZMZvUzYKlnfXQ.jgi1gNH2ocA

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. oil demand during the first half of 2008 fell by an average 800,000 barrels per day (bpd) compared with the same period a year ago, the biggest volume decline in 26 years, the Energy Information Administration said on Tuesday.

In its latest monthly energy forecast, the EIA said the huge drop in demand was due to slower U.S. economic growth and the impact of high petroleum prices.

The drop in U.S. oil demand helped offset a 1.3-million bpd increase in petroleum consumption in nonindustrial countries during the first half of the year.

Meanwhile -

http://news.yahoo.com/story/nm/20080812/us_nm/volt_list_dc;_ylt=AlKzR3jOCp3Ncd36lVERJUpH2ocA

DETROIT (Reuters) – In a bid to show the demand for the upcoming all-electric Chevrolet Volt, a proponent of the car has released details of an unofficial waiting list for the vehicle with over 33,000 prospective buyers.

Lyle Dennis, a New York neurologist who has emerged as a prominent enthusiast for the battery-powered car from General Motors Corp, has been assembling a list of prospective Volt buyers for over a year through his Web site GM-Volt.com.

On Tuesday, Dennis released details gleaned from the list showing that 33,411 people had signed up to show their intent to buy a Volt when the rechargeable car is released in 2010.

The list shows the highest number of potential Volt buyers in California, Texas, Florida and Michigan. It also includes potential buyers from 46 countries outside the United States.

The average price buyers were willing to pay for the car was $31,261 -- . . . .

. . . .

 

[chemisttree]

It's really tough to say if drilling anywhere will have an effect. If OPEC lowers their collective production quota by an equivalent amount of new oil on the market as a result of US production nothing will change. If a lot of new oil hits the market from a number of sources and OPEC maintains or increases their production quota and demand remains flat or falls then the price will go down. But how likely is all that?

 

[edward]

As far as drilling the Outer Continental shelf goes, it won't happen anytime soon.

There is a shortage of the huge drilling ships that are used in deep water drilling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19drillship.html?hp

Most of the existing ships are headed for Brazil. This includes the "West Polaris" which has been leased by Exxon.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a8V5CHwdycrk&refer=home

 

[mheslep]

It's really tough to say if drilling anywhere will have an effect. If OPEC lowers their collective production quota by an equivalent amount of new oil on the market as a result of US production nothing will change. ...

Well OPEC's oil income will change, substantially lower, if they do that.

 

[rootX]

God lowered the prices

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7566566.stm

 

[Gokul43201]

God lowered the prices

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7566566.stm

Oh God!

 

[WarPhalange]

So is he also to blame for causing them to go so high in the first place? Sort of like taking $10 from someone and then giving them back $5 after a lot of begging and having them thank you for it?

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Note that in the US at least, no deaths have ever been attributed to commercial nuclear accidents. Second, though waste is a complicated problem, source [2] does not support your claim of 'problem for mankind.. thousands of years'.

Nuclear waste remains radioctive for thousands of years, thus it's a problem for thousands of years.

It's not like your biodegradable trash you throw out every week.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

So? As your link states, ANWR is 1.5 million acres. The proposed drilling requires only a few dozen acres.

So? So the point is it's a nature PRESERVE.

Do you know what the R stands for in ANWR? It means it's land put aside for the wildlife and habitat meant to be protected from human exploitation.

I don't care about how little you think the footprint will be. I don't care if you only need one micrometer of the land. You can't have ANY of it, or else it defeats the whole purpose of having a wilderness preserve in the first place. Once you drill there it opens the floodgates for a slippery slope. Drill for oil there today and tomorrow watch Yellowstone converted into a giant shopping mall. It's not about protecting a dozen acres. It's about protecting the sanctity of a wildlife refuge.

 

[mheslep]

Nuclear waste remains radioctive for thousands of years, thus it's a problem for thousands of years...

Some radio isotopes have long half lives, some do not. Radioactive materials are not a 'problem' just because they are radioactive. That's begging the question.

 

[mheslep]

So? So the point is it's a nature PRESERVE.

Do you know what the R stands for in ANWR? It means it's land put aside for the wildlife and habitat meant to be protected from human exploitation.

I don't care about how little you think the footprint will be. I don't care if you only need one micrometer of the land. You can't have ANY of it, or else it defeats the whole purpose of having a wilderness preserve in the first place.

You are begging the question again: "It's a Reserve because its a Reserve". The 'R' is an artificial title assigned by people, and it can just as easily be undone. There was no Reserve sign put at the entrance to ANWR at its creation. BTW, I "don't care" what you think I can or can not have.

Once you drill there it opens the floodgates for a slippery slope. Drill for oil there today and tomorrow watch Yellowstone converted into a giant shopping mall. It's not about protecting a dozen acres. It's about protecting the sanctity of a wildlife refuge.

Slippery slope arguments, esp. without evidence (and they never have any) are unpersuasive.

 

[mgb_phys]

As far as drilling the Outer Continental shelf goes, it won't happen anytime soon.

There is a shortage of the huge drilling ships that are used in deep water drilling.

And what's worse is that the Jones act says you can't use them.
All ships working between US ports must be built/maintained in US owned yards. So apart from suddenly catching up on 30years of Scottish/Norwegian rig technology you are going to have to find some 300m deep fjords around Galverston to build them in.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

You are begging the question again: "It's a Reserve because its a Reserve".

It's a reserve because it's the LAW. It's not just an arbitrary title. The land is protected by law so by going there and drilling it is in violation of the law.

BTW, I "don't care" what you think I can or can not have.

But your government cares.

Slippery slope arguments, esp. without evidence (and they never have any) are unpersuasive.

You said it yourself. The reserve status can easily be undone, so they can easily undo the protected status of all of your national parks. If they can easily take the ANWR protection away, then they can do the same for yellowstone and level it to make a giant shopping mall. They argue drilling in ANWR will have economic benefits, create jobs etc. so they will say the same thing to exploit other protected lands and build whatever they want on them. Once you set the precedent, it opens the floodgates. That's why it's important to stand to your principles and not let ANY encroachment happen, even one mm of protected land exploitation isn't tolerable for this reason.

And there is plenty of historical proof of the slippery slope in action. Like after 9/11 the government decided they needed to take away a certain right of the people to combat terrorism and keep the people safe. Some smart people opposed saying NO RIGHTS AT ALL should be taken. But they did anyway. Before you know it, rights have been vanishing left and right and are still vanishing and people just got used to it.

People's property is ONLY to be seized for public use, per the constitution. Yet once upon a time, somebody said it should be okay to take a certain property for a commercial use, to create jobs, economic revitalization or what have you. They allowed it. Then even the supreme court ruled it was okay. Now the US has a widespread epidemic of people's homes being taken to make way for corporations and people are having their houses taken left and right. All because at one point they thought it was acceptable. And if the government has no qualms about taking property from its people, they certainly won't care about taking it from animals.

Give them an inch and they take a mile. That's how your government works.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Some radio isotopes have long half lives, some do not. Radioactive materials are not a 'problem' just because they are radioactive. That's begging the question.

They aren't a problem just because they are radioctive? Radioctive means they emit harmful radiation that poisons people and the environment; it's a problem by definition.

They are a "problem" because they contaminate the soil and water, and are a danger to people and animals.

Also it's not just like you can dump it somewhere and forget about it. Disposal sites must be monitered and protected and secured. Yet the waste can stay active for tens of thousands of years.. Even if you can protect the waste now, who is going to look after it 500 years from now? Or 5000? It's quite an unfair burden to place on our decendents, making them take care of the waste produced for our own use. And that's provided there even is a government in place in the future that can look after it.

 

[mgb_phys]

Radioctive means they emit harmful radiation that poisons people and the environment; it's a problem by definition.

No, radioactive means they emit radiation - not that it's harmfull.
Harmfull depends on several factors.

What kind or radiation (alpha=not a big problem, beta worse, gamma generally bad)

How radioactive, things with a very long half life (eg. Pu) decay slowly and so only emit very small amounts of radiation. Things with a very short half life (eg. H3) emit a lot of radiation for a brief time but then become harmless quickly.
The bad ones are the half lives similair to a human lifespan.

It's chemical activity. Insoluble Pu or U in granite not a big problem. Radon that you can breathe into your lungs = bad, ceasium/iodine that build up in your body = worse.

They are a "problem" because they contaminate the soil and water, and are a danger to people and animals.

Only if they are harmfull.

Also it's not just like you can dump it somewhere and forget about it. Disposal sites must be monitered and protected and secured. Yet the waste can stay active for tens of thousands of years..

It's better than other pollutants, mercury and arsenic are still going to be as toxic at the end of the universe. The radioactive waste is getting safer all the time.

The waste problem is made worse by not reprocessing the most active (and therefore the most dangerous but also the most valuable components) for political reasons. But at least the waste is contained and stored. Try removing all the polution and CO2 produced by a coal power station form the atmosphere and storing it until it's no longer harmfull.

 

[mheslep]

They aren't a problem just because they are radioctive? Radioctive means they emit harmful radiation that poisons people and the environment; it's a problem by definition.

Its a matter of degree, one can not just declare its a problem without weighing this against possible risks. Sunlight can be harmful. Drinking too much water can be harmful. Shaking a vending machine can be harmful. BTW, more people have been killed by falling vending machines in the US than by radiation from fission power plants.

Also it's not just like you can dump it somewhere and forget about it. Disposal sites must be monitered and protected and secured. Yet the waste can stay active for tens of thousands of years.. Even if you can protect the waste now, who is going to look after it 500 years from now? Or 5000? It's quite an unfair burden to place on our decendents, making them take care of the waste produced for our own use. And that's provided there even is a government in place in the future that can look after it.

Perhaps, but again that is a matter of degree. At some point one can argue that waste buried deeply enough underground in geological stable formations is even less of a threat than 'natural' toxic materials closer to the surface.

 

[mheslep]

OPEC cuts production

OPEC cut back 500000 bbl/day and price barely moved.

Sept. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil rose after OPEC urged its members to comply with output quotas, a move that would reduce supplies by 500,000 barrels a day.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries agreed at a meeting in Vienna to a total production limit for 11 members of 28.8 million barrels a day, unchanged from previous targets. OPEC Secretary-General Abdalla El-Badri said this means it will trim ``oversupply'' by about 500,000 barrels a day.
...
Crude oil for October delivery rose 66 cents, or 0.6 percent, to $103.92 a barrel at 9:30 a.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Which means a before/after loss in income of ~$50M/day for OPEC. Of course if the price had continued to fall to say $80 from over capacity they'd be out $560M/day.

 

[Gokul43201]

In related news:

WASHINGTON — As Congress prepares to debate expansion of drilling in taxpayer-owned coastal waters, the Interior Department agency that collects oil and gas royalties has been caught up in a wide-ranging ethics scandal — including allegations of financial self-dealing, accepting gifts from energy companies, cocaine use and sexual misconduct.

In three reports delivered to Congress on Wednesday, the department’s inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service, which collects about $10 billion in royalties annually and is one of the government’s largest sources of revenue other than taxes.

“A culture of ethical failure” besets the agency, Mr. Devaney wrote in a cover memo.

The reports portray a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Lest someone claim this is a conspiracy from the left wing media, here's more sources:
Reuters
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iKt4CePAt-tJqdPld1mZxbC4nsXwD934371G0
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122107135333120223.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep10/0,4670,InteriorOilTrysts,00.html

PS: For some reason, Chevron has decided not to co-operate with the investigation.

 

[edward]

In related news:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Lest someone claim this is a conspiracy from the left wing media, here's more sources:
Reuters
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iKt4CePAt-tJqdPld1mZxbC4nsXwD934371G0
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122107135333120223.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep10/0,4670,InteriorOilTrysts,00.html

PS: For some reason, Chevron has decided not to co-operate with the investigation.

It was probably the only government dept that wasn't just sitting around doing nothing

 

[lisab]

In related news:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Lest someone claim this is a conspiracy from the left wing media, here's more sources:
Reuters
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iKt4CePAt-tJqdPld1mZxbC4nsXwD934371G0
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122107135333120223.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep10/0,4670,InteriorOilTrysts,00.html

PS: For some reason, Chevron has decided not to co-operate with the investigation.

I always thought that if you wanted a life of debauchery - lots of sex and drugs - you had to go into the rock and roll busines. Who'd have thunk that the oil business or Department of the Interior would offer the same "perks"...?

 

[mathwonk]

these are precious finite resources that need to last a really long time. the price should be high to encourage careful husbandry of them. subsidies could be made available to the poor and needy but for the general user they should be expensive. helllooo? do we think the goal should be to encourage the wastage of natural resources as quickly as possible? how stupid is that? the injustice seems to be that the profit goes almost exclusively to oil companies that poach off the resources owned by the public.

or so it seems to me...but what do i know? after all, i was never mayor of wasilla. and i do not personally own any assault weapons.

 

[deckart]

these are precious finite resources that need to last a really long time. the price should be high to encourage careful husbandry of them. subsidies could be made available to the poor and needy but for the general user they should be expensive. helllooo? do we think the goal should be to encourage the wastage of natural resources as quickly as possible? how stupid is that? the injustice seems to be that the profit goes almost exclusively to oil companies that poach off the resources owned by the public.

or so it seems to me...but what do i know? after all, i was never mayor of wasilla. and i do not personally own any assault weapons.

Good point. I own assault weapons so let me help you out. You don't have to "husband" natural resources. The market will determine when they are running out. As they wear thin, the price will go up. No need to hold them back. Let the market set the price, not the government by restricting access.

 

[edward]

A recently released report indicates that speculation was a definite factor in the oil price surge. I find the third paragraph of this quote to be quite ironic.

Co-authored by hedge-fund manager Michael Masters, the report said that from January to May the institutional traders poured $60 billion into commodity markets, causing rapid spikes in crude prices.

After record highs were hit in July, traders yanked their billions to reap huge profits, allowing prices to nosedive and wreak even more damage on the way down for some investors.

Much of the cash used for the heavy betting was said by many portfolio chiefs to have been a result of the hundreds of billions in liquidity the Federal Reserve pumped into Wall Street banks. That cash enabled their big institutional clients to binge on commodities, which they'd traditionally avoided.

.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09112008/business/speculation_drove_oil_prices_up__report_128573.htm

Edit: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission does not agree with the report. On the other hand if they did agree heads would be rolling.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09112008/business/speculation_drove_oil_prices_up__report_128573.htm

 

[Mental Gridlock]

No, radioactive means they emit radiation - not that it's harmfull.
Harmfull depends on several factors.

What kind or radiation (alpha=not a big problem, beta worse, gamma generally bad)

How radioactive, things with a very long half life (eg. Pu) decay slowly and so only emit very small amounts of radiation. Things with a very short half life (eg. H3) emit a lot of radiation for a brief time but then become harmless quickly.
The bad ones are the half lives similair to a human lifespan.

It's chemical activity. Insoluble Pu or U in granite not a big problem. Radon that you can breathe into your lungs = bad, ceasium/iodine that build up in your body = worse.


Only if they are harmfull.


It's better than other pollutants, mercury and arsenic are still going to be as toxic at the end of the universe. The radioactive waste is getting safer all the time.

The waste problem is made worse by not reprocessing the most active (and therefore the most dangerous but also the most valuable components) for political reasons. But at least the waste is contained and stored. Try removing all the polution and CO2 produced by a coal power station form the atmosphere and storing it until it's no longer harmfull.

You're right.. I shouldn't go off topic anyway.