To drill or not to drill?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 18, 2008 | 12:02 PM
  #46  
Gotts2BMe's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,584
Likes: 0
From: Sask. Canada
Originally Posted by PKRWUD
According to the DOE Report, in Alaska, it would take 9 years to get oil flowing, and 21 years before it reached it's full potential.
If they opened it up, the oil would be flowing very well in 6 months
 
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2008 | 12:24 PM
  #47  
PKRWUD's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 0
From: Ventura, California
So the Department of Energy doesn't know what they're talking about?
 
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2008 | 12:32 PM
  #48  
ferguson41's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
From: Kentucky
Originally Posted by PKRWUD
So the Department of Energy doesn't know what they're talking about?
They probably do, but, I think that if the oil company's were given the go ahead they would do anything that they could to get the oil flowing as fast as possible b/c that is money in their pockets. I read the report from the DOE and the best that I can tell they are using an average time line for every stage of the oil exploration and production. I didnt see anywhere that took into consideration that the oil company's would or could step up the time frame for exploration/production.
 
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2008 | 12:55 PM
  #49  
PKRWUD's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 0
From: Ventura, California
Originally Posted by ferguson41
They probably do, but, I think that if the oil company's were given the go ahead they would do anything that they could to get the oil flowing as fast as possible b/c that is money in their pockets. I read the report from the DOE and the best that I can tell they are using an average time line for every stage of the oil exploration and production. I didnt see anywhere that took into consideration that the oil company's would or could step up the time frame for exploration/production.
You're probably right, but there's a big difference between 2 weeks, as the first gentleman said, or six months, as the second one said, and 9 years, as the DOE report said. I was just responding to the first guy who wanted to know where the suggestion of several years came from.
 
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2008 | 01:19 PM
  #50  
BennyHanna's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
From: Bismarck, ND
Originally Posted by Gotts2BMe
If they opened it up, the oil would be flowing very well in 6 months
Originally Posted by Gotts2BMe
I don't know where you guys are getting your figures from for your 5, 10, 20 years to produce oil. I work the drilling rigs and have for some time. Right now my rig is punching ~2000 meter horizontal (6000 feet) wells in about 8 days. From the time the rig hits the lease the well is paid for within 90 days. Each well costs about $1,000,000 just to drill, then the service rig comes on for about 4 days and then they set up the pump jack and it starts producing within 2 weeks and its paid for within that 90 days so I have no idea where you guys are getting your 5-10-20 years to start producing. I haven't worked offshore but there is no way that it would not take 5 years for that well to start producing, the oil patch don't F U C K around.

Ok, now there are alot of different speculations on how long it would take to get oil out. Now I agree with Gotts2Bme, in the fact that we don't mess around. Once drilling starts, wells can be on line and producing in a matter of a couple months. The main problem isn't drilling, or even transporting it to refineries. The biggest problem we have is, there aren't any more offshore drilling rigs. So the estimates that say it will take 10 years to see a return start to look good, since most offshore rigs are booked for years and years in advance. But they also assume that no more will be made. If and when we finally get to drill offshore in these area's, there will be a mad rush to get in and start drilling. Orders will be made to make more rigs (and they are making more, just not many right now) and we'll be in there drilling in just 2-3 years (my guess).



Originally Posted by CrAz3D
We also need money ... which is being burned away in Iraq.

And re: your "magic wand" comment, what about going to the moon? If you'd told people in the 1940s that we'd be on the moon I'm sure they would've laughed at you. Same for airplanes, and the a-bomb. But we did it.
Aren't you one to complain about how much money the oil companies are making? You don't think they have enough to invest an adequate amount of money to make drilling in these area's feasible? I mean, these companies are investing hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Not to mention, we know what we are doing when it comes to drilling and producing oil. We've become quite efficient over the last 100+ years.



Oh... and for those who don't think letting us drill there would have an impact. How much has oil dropped, just since Bush announced he'd lift the Executive ban? If that isn't a clear indication that the market is driven by speculators, I don't know what is. Lets not fool around and give the speculators time to artificially drive up the price again.
 
Reply
Old Jul 18, 2008 | 01:33 PM
  #51  
PKRWUD's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 0
From: Ventura, California
Originally Posted by BennyHanna
Oh... and for those who don't think letting us drill there would have an impact. How much has oil dropped, just since Bush announced he'd lift the Executive ban? If that isn't a clear indication that the market is driven by speculators, I don't know what is. Lets not fool around and give the speculators time to artificially drive up the price again.
I agree that the speculators should pretty much be castrated, but I'm not ready to give George all the credit. The Energy Department released a study on Tuesday that analysts are saying had more to do with it.

In explaining the fall, some analysts cited concerns that weakening economies would cut into global oil demand.

"We have strong concerns about the sharp rise in oil prices," the Group of 8 countries said in a statement from their summit in Japan. "The world economy is now facing uncertainty and downside risk persists."

Other reasons for the price slump include a rebounding dollar, a reduced threat to U.S. production from Hurricane Bertha and an easing of tensions over Iran's nuclear enrichment program.

Fallout from high fuel prices prompted the Energy Department to lower by a third its U.S. demand projection for 2008. The agency said in a report Tuesday that the high prices and a weak economy would cut the nation's consumption for fuel and petroleum by about 400,000 barrels a day for the year.
Story
 
Reply




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:46 AM.