← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Pennsylvania_Dutch
Thread ID: 20624 | Posts: 38 | Started: 2005-10-12
2005-10-12 15:13 | User Profile
Only a few years ago, the worry was that oil might drop below $5 dollars a barrel. How many of you remember that crisis in the oil patch.
People forget, that there are by very prudent estimates 11 TRILLION barrels of PROVEN oil reserves in the US and our costal areas---that's not counting PROVEN reserves in other parts of the world. God only knows how much oil is out there...and the true source of oil formation.
Let's not forget that the only refinery crisis in the US, was in California, because of certain grades of gasoline required by law in California. There was no refinery crisis a few short years ago.
We are getting raped by big oil and big jew working together in an unholy alliance to raise oil and gasoline prices.
The Rockefellers of this world and their jews like Henry Kissinger have put us in the position we are in now of high oil and fuel prices.
I wish I had more time to write and research this topic.
2005-10-12 15:33 | User Profile
This is right up your ally. It is an interesting theory. [url]http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html[/url]
2005-10-12 16:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]This is right up your ally. It is an interesting theory. [url="http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html"]http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html[/url][/QUOTE] Vialls isn't that far-out. Both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have run stories on how oil is/was formed.
I've read the "Great Wildcatter" Mike Benedum, and Mike described oil as flowing in rivers under the ground. Not real scientific, but Mike Benedum was probably the most successful "wildcatter"---I can't think of anyone else who made as many big discoveries of oil all over the globe.
All of that happy horseshit aside, we know that the fear was in the recent past, that oil would drop to $5 dollars a barrel. That's before the unholy alliance of big jew and big oil had their boy in the White House, and complete control of Congress.
No opposition from the "jewed" party of the opposition either.
2005-10-12 16:28 | User Profile
PD,
If someone would stuff a sock in Bush's mouth, the price would probably drop 25%.
I saw that article in the Wall Street Journal. It was about an oil field in the Gulf of Mexico that had been shut down for some years and started producing oil again at a high rate. I read another article back in the mid '80s where some feller was drilling deep for oil in Sweden, of all places. He found some.
I think that there is some validity to this theory.
2005-10-12 16:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]PD,
If someone would stuff a sock in Bush's mouth, the price would probably drop 25%.
I saw that article in the Wall Street Journal. It was about an oil field in the Gulf of Mexico that had been shut down for some years and started producing oil again at a high rate. I read another article back in the mid '80s where some feller was drilling deep for oil in Sweden, of all places. He found some.
I think that there is some validity to this theory.[/QUOTE]Its still a free country for investors. If you or PD or really think there's validity in his theory, you're free to find a drilling company that is going to get rich subscribing to it.
2005-10-12 16:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]PD,
If someone would stuff a sock in Bush's mouth, the price would probably drop 25%.
I saw that article in the Wall Street Journal. It was about an oil field in the Gulf of Mexico that had been shut down for some years and started producing oil again at a high rate. I read another article back in the mid '80s where some feller was drilling deep for oil in Sweden, of all places. He found some.
I think that there is some validity to this theory.[/QUOTE]Yep. Bush is the nexus of big oil and big jew. But, I'm sure there are others who would be more than happy to be the connecting link between big oil and big jew. I'm sure Bush is aware of this too.
Bush nemisis Al Gore has always been a big jew lapdog. The Gore family income from deals with big jew Armand Hammer and his Occidental Petroleum. Picking that repulsive jewboy Joe Lieberman as his VP. Or now poor Al Gore having a lot of dealings with jewboy TV lawyer Joel Hyatt and his father in law former Senator from Israel Howard Metzenbaum.
2005-10-12 17:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Its still a free country for investors. If you or PD or really think there's validity in his theory, you're free to find a drilling company that is going to get rich subscribing to it.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure there are people in the oil business who are doing just that...naturally they are taking advantage of helping big jew rape Americans for a price...:angry:
2005-10-12 17:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]I'm sure there are people in the oil business who are doing just that...naturally they are taking advantage of helping big jew rape Americans for a price...:angry:[/QUOTE]Don't just bitch - oil's so obviously all over everywhere, drill your own oil well and get rich too. Surely these oilmen haven't reduced you to energetic impotency.
2005-10-12 17:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Don't just bitch - oil's so obviously all over everywhere, drill your own oil well and get rich too. Surely these oilmen haven't reduced you to energetic impotency.[/QUOTE]Okie---you miss the point. It doesn't matter how oil was/is formed. You are being "butt foked" by big jew & big oil everytime you pull into a gas station. There are by the most prudent of estimates 11 trillion barrels of oil proven to be in the ground in reserve in the US and our costal areas. This does not count future discoveries in the US, or oil from anywhere else in the world.
Itz only been a few years ago that oil was expected to fall to $5 dollars a barrel!
Btw, it would be real nice if we had a dozen or so large independents running around today---but---we don't!
2005-10-12 18:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]Okie---you miss the point. It doesn't matter how oil was/is formed. You are being "butt foked" by big jew & big oil everytime you pull into a gas station. There are by the most prudent of estimates 11 trillion barrels of oil proven to be in the ground in reserve in the US and our costal areas. This does not count future discoveries in the US, or oil from anywhere else in the world.
Itz only been a few years ago that oil was expected to fall to $5 dollars a barrel!
Btw, it would be real nice if we had a dozen or so large independents running around today---but---we don't![/QUOTE]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that in the future the [B]ratio[/B] of oil you find will be much smaller relative to the amount you use to extract it. In other words, oil that is easy to extract will become rare. Oil will still be around, but it will be much more expensive to obtain, and much more a luxury commodity. No?
2005-10-12 18:31 | User Profile
Okie, [QUOTE]Don't just bitch - oil's so obviously all over everywhere, drill your own oil well and get rich too. Surely these oilmen haven't reduced you to energetic impotency.[/QUOTE] If you re-read what I wrote above you will see I wrote "I think that there is some validity to this theory." That is a far cry from what you wrote above and takes my comment completely out of context.
2005-10-12 18:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]Btw, it would be real nice if we had a dozen or so large independents running around today---but---we don't![/QUOTE]Oil company consolidations are a real issue, but I think evidence in the past shows that the U.S. oil industry or any other cartel in theworld (i.e. OPEC) would not be able to drive up the price by restricting the sale of oil that is in the ground and ready to be pumped.
I'm sure there are a lot of people mad at someone, just like you do, but there's no money to be had by skewering oil companies. There's a little money there, but not a whole lot. nothing even like there was in the 70's. You can't get blood out of a turnip.
You're barking up the wrong tree.
2005-10-12 18:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Okie,
If you re-read what I wrote above you will see I wrote "I think that there is some validity to this theory." That is a far cry from what you wrote above and takes my comment completely out of context.[/QUOTE] Actually I wasn't using your comment.
Although if you want to drill for oil in Sweden you won't be getting any of my money.
2005-10-12 18:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Oil company consolidations are a real issue, but I think evidence in the past shows that the U.S. oil industry or any other cartel in theworld (i.e. OPEC) would not be able to drive up the price by restricting the sale of oil that is in the ground and ready to be pumped.
I'm sure there are a lot of people mad at someone, just like you do, but there's no money to be had by skewering oil companies. There's a little money there, but not a whole lot. nothing even like there was in the 70's. You can't get blood out of a turnip.
You're barking up the wrong tree.[/QUOTE] Hardly, big oil & big jew have set up the perfect storm to serve their interests.
You can't have a much more unholy alliance, than let's say the Rockefeller & Kissinger interests i.e. Bush and the Neo-Kahns...
The reason there is no opposition to this price gouging & manipulation of world oil markets is the confluence of big oil and big jew. Let's not forget big jew pays for the loyal opposition---well over half of the contributions to the Democrats are from big jew. Therefore no real opposition to this rape at the pumps...where are the calls for nationalization of the oil companies by mainstream politicians, and the call for shared sacrifices by both parties in this so-called war on terror...:hitler: Nowhere because they run against jew political interests...and big oil's political interest which is money.
2005-10-12 18:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]Therefore no real opposition to this rape at the pumps...where are the calls for nationalization of the oil companies by mainstream politicians, and the call for shared sacrifices by both parties in this so-called war on terror...:hitler: Nowhere because they run against jew political interests...and big oil's political interest which is money.[/QUOTE]You think jews aren't intersted in money? Or that they wouldn't sell their supposed coconspirators in the oil business overboard in a minute if ther was some money to be shaken down?
Your drilling for culpability like the fellow drilling for oil in Sweden. If you looked for better places for guilt you'd have more success. Until then you're driving your car (and your arguments) on chicken sh***.
2005-10-12 19:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]Vialls isn't that far-out. Both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have run stories on how oil is/was formed. Uh hmm. I guess you listen to the jews occasionally eh?
I've read the "Great Wildcatter" Mike Benedum, and Mike described oil as flowing in rivers under the ground. Not real scientific, but Mike Benedum was probably the most successful "wildcatter"---I can't think of anyone else who made as many big discoveries of oil all over the globe.[/QUOTE]
I don't personally subscribe to oil [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20628]Big Rock Candy Mountain [/URL] theories, although they might help to hook investors.
2005-10-12 19:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Actually I wasn't using your comment.[/QUOTE] You sure had me fooled.
Although if you want to drill for oil in Sweden you won't be getting any of my money.[/QUOTE] I didn't say that I did. I simply pointed out something I read that turned out to be true. As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on this. However, I do believe we have large potential reserves of crude oil.
2005-10-12 20:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]You think jews aren't intersted in money? Or that they wouldn't sell their supposed coconspirators in the oil business overboard in a minute if ther was some money to be shaken down?
Your drilling for culpability like the fellow drilling for oil in Sweden. If you looked for better places for guilt you'd have more success. Until then you're driving your car (and your arguments) on chicken sh***.[/QUOTE] Big jew is interested in money too. But, big jews interests are not as narrow as big oil's interests. The jew neo cons should have convinced you of that by now---the protection and expansion of the jew homeland plays a big role in the jew's hubris. The protection & expansion of the parasites hive.
The relationship between big jew and big oil is symbiotic in that they are both feeding off of each other.
For those poor fools who thought that the US taking military control of Iraq would mean cheap oil for the USA have been proved wrong! That surely is the first of many failures of the unhholy alliance of big oil & big jew.
There is no free enterprise solution to this dilemma as now constituted.
2005-10-12 20:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]You sure had me fooled. I don't know how.
I didn't say that I did. I simply pointed out something I read that turned out to be true. As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on this. And I say the oil is presumed non-existant until proven otherwise, under any reasonable system of engineering science.> However, I do believe we have large potential reserves of crude oil.[/QUOTE]You can't fill your tank on "potential" reserves. You can take [B]that[/B] to the bank.
2005-10-12 21:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Uh hmm. I guess you listen to the jews occasionally eh?
I don't personally subscribe to oil [url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20628"]Big Rock Candy Mountain [/url] theories, although they might help to hook investors.[/QUOTE]
Mike Benedum was a Methodist and of olde German ancestry. Some Irish Catholic Democrat politicians didn't like him because he would stick them in the jump seat back in the 30's & 40's...:lol:but, they took his money, and lots of it, never the less...
Speakin' of investments, back in the 80's I tried to interest one of Benedum's surviving relatives, who was/is a player in the Benedum Foundation in trying to get some of the younger friends/admirers of the old Benedum gang together for investment-business networking. Even if it was for strictly feel good purposes. The Methodists were willing, and saw the benefit at the time: **I will end it here becaue I'm getting too personal. **
2005-10-12 23:21 | User Profile
Okie,
What do you suggest we do about this? You obviously have some idea.
2005-10-12 23:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]You sure had me fooled.
I didn't say that I did. I simply pointed out something I read that turned out to be true. As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on this. However, I do believe we have large potential reserves of crude oil.[/QUOTE]
The North Sea. Who would of thunk...:dry:
Sert, take a peek at the Benedum Foundation website. One half heine, I guess, and the rest of the bod wasps including that old crook Gov. Smith...:dung:
2005-10-13 01:36 | User Profile
PD,
Interesting website. Okie's unhelpful comments aside, I think that abiotic oil should be looked into. While that is being done some vigorous antitrust action against the oil companies should be pursued. (It used to be the "seven sisters". Now, it is more like the "big three") I don't trust these transnationals anymore than you do. [url]http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html[/url] While it is true about a new refinery not being built since the late '70s is true, I'd like to know why a number of refineries have been shut down since then. I don't think all of them were obsolete. I can see the case being made that the oil companies would rather deal with the Mideast for it is more profitable for them to get the oil there than to get it here, using the US Armed Forces as their gerdarmes.
At $70 a barrel I wonder if we will finally see some synthetic fuel development?
2005-10-13 02:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Okie,
What do you suggest we do about this? You obviously have some idea.[/QUOTE] I hate to say it this way, but first you ought to just try Bush's energy program. Look at the particulars - expanded drilling for starters. He also suggests some expanded nuclear and/or other alternative energy sources to a moderate extent.
Its a little conventional, and yes, does pretty much fit the oil companies own ideas, but heh, what do you expect from an oil patch stater? Its more creative at least IMO than the standard non-oil patch state democrat plan, i.e. draw and quarter all oil company exec's until they tll us where they've got all that oil they're hiding.
2005-10-13 02:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]PD,
Interesting website. Okie's unhelpful comments aside, I think that abiotic oil should be looked into. While that is being done some vigorous antitrust action against the oil companies should be pursued. (It used to be the "seven sisters". Now, it is more like the "big three") I don't trust these transnationals anymore than you do. [url="http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html"]http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html[/url] While it is true about a new refinery not being built since the late '70s is true, I'd like to know why a number of refineries have been shut down since then. I don't think all of them were obsolete. I can see the case being made that the oil companies would rather deal with the Mideast for it is more profitable for them to get the oil there than to get it here, using the US Armed Forces as their gerdarmes.
At $70 a barrel I wonder if we will finally see some synthetic fuel development?[/QUOTE] The only refinery problems heard about until just recently, were those California refineries, that could not make enough of the special grade of gasoline mandated by California environmental law.
Unless people start to raise hell, $3 dollar or more a gallon gasoline is here to stay...big jew & big oil have won the day.
2005-10-13 02:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]PD,
Interesting website. Okie's unhelpful comments aside, I think that abiotic oil should be looked into. While that is being done some vigorous antitrust action against the oil companies should be pursued. (It used to be the "seven sisters". Now, it is more like the "big three") I don't trust these transnationals anymore than you do. Well yes, although this sounds just like the gripers of the 70's (break up the big oil companies) this time it really does hold true, after we've allowed massive consolidation of the oil companies. But that's lagely too late to do anything about now.> [url]http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html[/url] While it is true about a new refinery not being built since the late '70s is true, I'd like to know why a number of refineries have been shut down since then. I don't think all of them were obsolete. This is simple - environmental requirements. Oil refining is something you could do in your backyard, but not if you have to deal with the EPA.
I can see the case being made that the oil companies would rather deal with the Mideast for it is more profitable for them to get the oil there than to get it here, using the US Armed Forces as their gerdarmes.
It certainly is simpler. In fact anywhere in the world is simpler and easier than in the USA, with its scores of environmentalists and trial lawyers.
At $70 a barrel I wonder if we will finally see some synthetic fuel development?[/QUOTE]Its certainly technically feasible at that price. I read coal to gasoline becomes feasible at about $50/barrel.
An awful lot is feasible at that price. But it takes massive investment and some long term committment of a friendly regulatory environment from the gov't. Right now, you're right, the only massive committment of resources/attention being made is to our mideast gendarm role.
2005-10-13 16:01 | User Profile
Just read the other day that some big bucks are being invested in recovering oil from the tar sands in Alberta, Canada.
Time for the Brits to start drilling in the Falkland Islands, supposedly more oil down there than in Saudi Arabia. You don't think that the Argentines & Limies were fighting over sheep grazing pastures back in 1982?
Countries like Japan & France are getting a goodly portion of their electricity from nuclear power. Meanwhile we have 100's of perfectly usable, safe reactors gathering dust in our navy's mothballed ships & submarines. These should be brought on line supplying power to our elecrical grid. It's ludicrous to be using fossil fuels for heating and air conditioning when we have all this unused generating capacity sitting around gathering dust. The taxpayers have already paid for these reactors for crying out loud. It's about time that we get some practical benefits from the billions spent on harnessing the power of the atom.
2005-10-13 16:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Blond Knight]Just read the other day that some big bucks are being invested in recovering oil from the tar sands in Alberta, Canada.
Time for the Brits to start drilling in the Falkland Islands, supposedly more oil down there than in Saudi Arabia. You don't think that the Argentines & Limies were fighting over sheep grazing pastures back in 1982?
Countries like Japan & France are getting a goodly portion of their electricity from nuclear power. Meanwhile we have 100's of perfectly usable, safe reactors gathering dust in our navy's mothballed ships & submarines. These should be brought on line supplying power to our elecrical grid. It's ludicrous to be using fossil fuels for heating and air conditioning when we have all this unused generating capacity sitting around gathering dust. The taxpayers have already paid for these reactors for crying out loud. It's about time that we get some practical benefits from the billions spent on harnessing the power of the atom.[/QUOTE]All sorts of ideas out there. But the fact of the matter is there aren't any easy answers, IMO (or the opinion of any other serious expert). Especially quickly.
People in this country just haven't taken energy policy seriously. Its part of the new libertarian thinking of people like Julian Simon (who in the same vein thought unrestricted immigration for the U.S. and a 60 billion population for the earth were no problem. All this shortage talk of vital commodities ( a la Erlich and Club of Rome) was just a conspiracy among various people trying to create panic a drive oil prices up. There was actually just a [URL="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20628"]Big Rock Candy Mountain [/URL]of Energy, just waiting for us if we ever needed it
[CENTER]On a summer day in the month of May a burly bum came hiking Down a shady lane through the sugar cane, he was looking for his liking. As he roamed along he sang a song of the land of milk and honey Where a bum can stay for many a day, and he won't need any money
Oh the buzzin' of the bees in the cigarette trees near the soda water fountain, At the lemonade springs where the bluebird sings on the Big Rock Candy Mountains
There's a lake of gin we can both jump in, and the handouts grow on bushes In the new-mown hay we can sleep all day, and the bars all have free lunches Where the mail train stops and there ain't no cops, and the folks are tender-hearted Where you never change your socks and you never throw rocks, And your hair is never parted [/CENTER]
2005-10-13 18:50 | User Profile
The US has a proven oil reserve of 11 TRILLION barrels. That's one hell of a lot of oil. :twisted:
1,000 x 1,000 = 1,000,000 1,000 x 1,000,000 = 1,000,000,000 1,000 x 1,000,000,000 = 1,000,000,000,000 11 x 1,000,000,000,000 = 11,000,000,000,000
That doesn't count what maybe discovered, or alternative production of oil sands, shale, syn fuels of various mixtures etc. etc.
We are being raped by big jew and big oil in an unholy alliance. :hitler:
2005-10-13 19:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]The US has a proven oil reserve of 11 TRILLION barrels. That's one hell of a lot of oil. :twisted:
1,000 x 1,000 = 1,000,000 1,000 x 1,000,000 = 1,000,000,000 1,000 x 1,000,000,000 = 1,000,000,000,000 11 x 1,000,000,000,000 = 11,000,000,000,000
Not only oil, but alcohol too! Why do you have to pay $11 a fifth then, when you can put it in your car for just $2 a gallon? You're right - there's a big rock candy mountain of everything, if they'd just let you get at it.
[CENTER]And little streams of alcohol come a-trickling down the rocks The brakemen have to tip their hats and the railroad bulls are blind There's a lake of stew and of whiskey too And you can paddle all around 'em in a big canoe In the Big Rock Candy Mountains[/CENTER]
2005-10-13 20:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]The US has a proven oil reserve of 11 TRILLION barrels. That's one hell of a lot of oil.
11 trillion barrels? What is your source for that number? According to the US Dept of Energy ([url]http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html[/url]) the US has approximately 29 [I]billion[/I] barrels of oil reserves. Saudi Arabia has the largest reserves of any country, and they only have 261 billion barrels. Also, you are referring to existing, finite reserves. With Chinese and Indian demand soaring, finding new sources of oil is necessary to replace what is used. However --
[I]The world's problem is as follows. We now consume six barrels of oil for every new barrel we discover. Major oil finds (of over 500m barrels) peaked in 1964. In 2000, there were 13 such discoveries, in 2001 six, in 2002 two and in 2003 none. Three major new projects will come onstream in 2007 and three in 2008. For the following years, none have yet been scheduled. [/I] [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...233533,00.html[/url]
Furthermore -- * ConocoPhillips, the Houston-based amalgam of Continental Oil and Phillips Petroleum, announced in January that new additions to its oil reserves in 2004 amounted to only about 60-65% of all the oil it produced that year, entailing a significant depletion of those existing reserves.
ChevronTexaco, the second largest U.S. energy firm after ExxonMobil, also reported a significant imbalance between oil production and replacement. Although not willing to disclose the precise nature of the company's shortfall, chief executive Dave O'Reilly told analysts that he expects "our 2004 reserves-replacement rate to be low."
Royal Dutch/Shell, already reeling from admissions last year that it had over-stated its oil and natural gas reserves by 20%, recently lowered its estimated holdings by another 10%, bringing its net loss to the equivalent of 5.3 billion barrels of oil. Even more worrisome, Shell announced in February that it had replaced only about 45-55% of the oil and gas it produced in 2004, an unexpectedly disappointing figure. [url]http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2277[/url]
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]That doesn't count what maybe discovered, or alternative production of oil sands, shale, syn fuels of various mixtures etc. etc.[/QUOTE] It costs 20 times more to extract oil from the oil sands of Canada as it does from existing deposits. It has a ratio of energy invested to energy extracted of 1.5 to 1, whereas with conventional deposits it is 30 to 1. With shale, the situation is worse, with current methods producing a 1 to 1 ratio. This means the amount of energy necessary to extract a barrel of oil from shale is equal to a barrel of oil. As the geologist Dr. Walter Youngquist explains --
The average citizen . . . is led to believe that the United States really has no oil supply problem when oil shales hold "recoverable oil" equal to "more than 64 percent of the world's total proven crude oil reserves." Presumably the United States could tap into this great oil reserve at any time. This is not true at all. All attempts to get this "oil" out of shale have failed economically. Furthermore, the "oil" (and, it is not oil as is crude oil, but this is not stated) may be recoverable but the net energy recovered may not equal the energy used to recover it. If oil is "recovered" but at a net energy loss, the operation is a failure.
Oil will grow increasingly scarce and increasingly expensive for the rest of our lifetimes.
2005-10-13 20:49 | User Profile
Quint, have the joos gotten to you too? Don't say it :lol:
2005-10-13 21:36 | User Profile
Well, put the Yates field in full production, the price of a barrel of oil will drop below $5 dollars a barrel, and we will all be long dead, before its going dry becomes an issue.
By the same token, I opposed China WTO-PNTR in a big way, the Chinese are hyper industrializing and every Chinese Doctor dreams of running his luxury SUV around China on the Chinese version of the interstate.
I think this jew universalism/do gooderism in respect to China, India and the other Asian powers is another root cause of the problem---but---more of a potential, environmental problem that the jews/elite want us Americans to share in the sacrifice by downsizing our demand too.
2005-10-14 00:07 | User Profile
While I know that this will not put any gas in your SUV tomorrow, the following story is of interest for this discussion.
[url]http://www.sartma.com/art_1980.html?PHPSESSID=ea56ad4fe37c2f2ef8fdc687d8172d36[/url]
Home | Categories | Mineral Resources Please tell us what you think of this article. Tell a friend Print Friendly Falklands : Desire Petroleum to Conduct Environmental Impact Assessment in North Falkland Basin Submitted by Falkland Islands News Network (Juanita Brock) 07.10.2005 (Current Article)
Desire are soon to start exploratory drilling in the North Falkland Basin but prior to that, an environmental Impact assessment will be carried out.
DESIRE PETROLEUM TO CONDUCT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN NORTH FALKLAND BASIN
By J. Brock (FINN)
Desire Petroleumââ¬â¢s Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Ian Duncan (ID) is visiting the Falklands this week to make arrangements to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in the Companyââ¬â¢s Tranches in the North Falkland Basin. In an exclusive interview with FINN, Mr. Duncan explained that he wasnââ¬â¢t here for a shareholdersââ¬â¢ meeting but
ID: Itââ¬â¢s on-going planning for the resumption of drilling in the North Falkland Basin. As we have announced, we are planning to drill three wells there and, as part of the process, we are preparing an Environmental Impact Assessment. This is an update of the 1998 EIA, which the companies prepared at that time.
We have appointed a company called RPS Energy, which is the leading environmental consultancy company in Europe to produce it. In the first part of the process of this visit, John Parry, who is the Environmental Manager, who will be carrying out the EIA, was here last week. And, with myself, we visited all the major stake holders, which are, Mineral Resources, Falklands Conservation, Fisheries, the Chief Executive, the Deputy Governor, Environmental Planning and the Public Works Department. We really just wanted to find out what the major stake holdersââ¬â¢ concerns were so we could address them in the EIA.
We have had some very successful meetings. The intention was for John to go back to the UK and draw up the EIA and we will submit it in late November to the Director of Mineral Resources. There is an internal time table for Mineral Resources and Phyl Rendell is to take it to Executive Council and it will be published in the Gazette for 42 days.
It was very important for Mr Duncan to stress that Desire Plc is a transparent company. And no wonder. Speculation was high about the low-key visit thus far.
ID: We encourage people to ask questions about what we are doing. We want people to be aware of our operations so the EIA will be published for 42 days and we will invite comments. And, at the end of that period we will come back with RPS and our drilling people. We will then have a public meeting and explain what it is we are about and address any issues that have arisen during the presentation and the EIA.
FINN: Is the EIA an important part of the process?
ID: A very important part. For us, environmental protection is a priority with regard to our operations. Thatââ¬â¢s why we are conducting this study and also why we are having these presentations, so if people have concerns, we point out this is a very straight forward operation. Drilling has taken place in this area before. There have been extensive base-line studies as a result of the 1998 drilling. We are very keen to involve all parties in our activities.
FINN: I understand that all of the seismic is done and that the next stage after the EIA will be drilling. Is this true or do you have more seismic work to do?
ID: In 2004, we shot the 3D seismic 840 sq km and interpreted the data. We have identified these prospects we would like to drill. Earlier this year we had a fundraising exercise when we raised ã24Million and we are currently putting in place all the permits and approvals to commence drilling and we are looking for a rig.
As we have announced recently in our interim statement, the rig market has changed dramatically in the last 6 months. Last December we had a rig enquiry to the market on the availability of rigs and seven of the major drilling companies phoned and said they had suitable rigs. In the meantime, we went through the fund raising exercise. We then went again to look at the market, once we had the funds ââ¬â we couldnââ¬â¢t secure the rig until we had the money.
We discovered the rig market had tightened dramatically and of course the oil price has gone up ââ¬â doubled. Rig rates have doubled as well and the availability of rigs has really reduced dramatically. There are several reasons for this as oil prices are encouraging companies to go drilling for exploration wells, drilling production wells, they are drilling appraisal wells. So now we are looking at a very tight market but we have been here before on these markets, when oil prices go up they also come down.
Seeing that the price of getting a rig to the North Falkland Basin had doubled, would Desire have to go back to the market place to raise more money? The short answer is no. They simply will wait until prices stabilise before identifying a rig and putting it over an exploratory prospect.
What happens in the rig market is that ââ¬â and we are already seeing it ââ¬â new rigs start to get built. We know there are 30 new rigs under construction. What really brings it to our attention is that people drill dry holes, so they may have a continuing programme drilling wells but they decided not to drill any more wells so those rigs then come on the market.
The company we are using for drilling is called Peak Well Management. They are an international company that are involved in drilling over 30 wells world-wide this year ââ¬â West Africa, the North Sea ââ¬â and they are actively looking for a rig for us at the moment. Itââ¬â¢s been very disappointing and frustrating for us that we have not been able to get a rig but we are doing everything possible to get one. We donââ¬â¢t know when that will be.
FINN: I have heard that one of the problems in finding a suitable rig is that the technology is scarce that will drill through the rather thick source rock that is predominant in the North Falkland Basin. Is this a major factor in why you cannot get a rig down here?
ID: Six wells were drilled in the area where we are going to drill. These wells were drilled in 1998 and they were really rather straight forward wells. There were no complications. For example, they drilled a 3,000 metre well in just over 20 days. As I say, no hazards were identified and drilling is very straight forward. We donââ¬â¢t see any problems.
The conditions where we are drilling in the North Falkland Basin are very similar to the central North Sea weather-wise, so you can drill all the year around. The water depths are very reasonable and similar to the North Sea. These are shallow wells ââ¬â 3,000 metres. We are not looking at deep wells and we are planning to drill three wells and we are looking at 80 to 100 days for the total programme, so this is not a long duration programme. Because the environment is very similar in terms of water depth and weather in the North sea, we can use what is called 3rd Generation semi submersibles. And there are a lot of those available in the north.
This is not a deep water hostile environment like the west of Shetland where there are many fewer rigs than there are available that can drill areas like the North Falkland Basin.
FINN: Many people writing about this area tout horrible weather and, FINN has replied to one such article recently.
ID: I always say the weather is like that in Aberdeen and I am from Aberdeen so I might be a little bit biased. You do get a bit more sunshine that London. I just wish I had taken my shorts and tee shirts with me.
FINN: We know about the source rock in the North Falkland Basin but FOGL are showing their results in the South Falkland Basin that shows gas chimneys and flat spots. FOGL say that from satellite they see crude oil slicks. Are there any such indicators in the North Falkland Basin?
ID: Yes. We see those as well. We shot 3D seismic so we got very good control on our prospects. As I say, we have identified seven prospects, which we are ready to drill. Some of those do have flat spots and some of them do have vent gas chimneys as well. We have drilled before and we have got a very good idea what the geology is.
The reason we like the North Falkland Basin so much is the source rock which you mentioned. It is a world class source rock. Itââ¬â¢s 1,000 metres thick and everybody who looks at it have come up with estimates of large quantities. We have developed a model where we think the oil has accumulated on the margins of the Basin in these deltas, which we have identified. And, those are the features we are hoping to drill in the next drilling campaign.
FINN: The price of oil dropped to $61.32 yesterday. If the price drops significantly, at which point would a drilling programme here become unviable? That price has risen since 1998, when it hovered around $14.00 per barrel.
ID: The economics we did last year suggested that at $30.00 oil and 35Million barrels recoverable would be economic. The fiscal regime is very similar to the North Sea. We would apply very similar drilling techniques in those sort of developments ââ¬â offshore developments would be the sort of thing weââ¬â¢d have in mind so we based all our economics on $25.00 - $30.00 oil. At $60.00 obviously it looks a lot more attractive.
FINN: Compared with the North Sea, how large is the area you are planning to drill?
ID: The fields we are looking at are similar potentially. They are very large fields. The first prospect we will drill, Liz, has got something like 700 to 900Million barrels of oil recoverable, which would be a very large field. So, we have a range of prospects. Liz is the largest but we have other prospects as well.
We see the 3D seismic but until we drill, we donââ¬â¢t know whether there is oil there. We have done all we can and now we are ready to drill and we are frustrated that we canââ¬â¢t get a rig. We are doing everything we can and will resume drilling as soon as possible.
We are here to do the planning, getting everything in place ââ¬â all our ducks in a row so that when we do get a rig, we are ready to drill as quickly as possible. Preparing the Environmental Impact Assessment is just part of that process.
FINN: Finally, how are you going to let people know about the EIA and your proposed drilling programme?
ID: We intend to have a public meeting at the end of January, early February and we will detail the operational plans, all the mitigation efforts we will be putting in place and having an absolute minimum environmental footprint in the area.
This article is the Property and Copyright of Falkland Islands News Network. Powered by NIC.SH Copyright é 1993-2005 SARTMA.com Design by CrownNet
2005-10-16 04:05 | User Profile
worked summers for mobil wbw.
shut down good wells in so tx.
peak oil is bs.
we all should have wells in our backyards.
drill everwhar.
2005-10-16 04:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=van helsing]worked summers for mobil wbw.
shut down good wells in so tx. AHA! So you're the culprit! :lol:
we all should have wells in our backyards.
drill everwhar.[/QUOTE]Actually that's what everyone says about oil and associated things - [B]Not[/B] in my backyard (NIMBY)
2005-10-16 04:56 | User Profile
i have run into that.
a crook i used to work with, native to the hellhole state i am in now, complained about my approach, that it isnt ecologically sound, we have too much water here, blah blah blah, boolsheet boolsheet boolsheet...
pure and utter hypocrisy, the same kind that used furreners to go and fight the south to keep it down with its former slaves (so they couldnt keep trying to move nawth!)...
typical yankee bs imho. yall sutheners exhaust yer land / resources / energies and we will exhaust ours later. or that of some other furreners.
the south is not the same nation as the north.
i live up north but am not of this land.
2005-10-16 23:21 | User Profile
Please, do tell us more about your native Transylvania...:biggrin:.
All kiddin' aside, Mike Benedum did open up an oil field in Romania...:shocking: