90xjay said:
Something as important as crude should not be traded on the futures market.
Cattle, wheat, sugar, yes, but crude no.
jumppr said:
Even if the local gas stations and delivery guys aren't making much of a profit.....somewhere, someone is making a profit. That article mentioned an oil company posting $36 billion profit last year. I take that to believe that's after overhead is paid.
I agree that we should become more self-reliant, but I have to say that I don't think that the environmentalists are the biggest enemy here. That's a misconception. There is more PROFIT (for the wrong people) to be made by importing oil (as weird a concept as that is) Why? Well, for many of the reasons 90 stated above, it's a cost vs. yield thing. One of the best I've seen is from an essay I read here:
http://www.gravmag.com/index.html
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.
You can find this info anywhere, but Mr. Gibson's essay was very concise.
jumppr said:
How many of us know exactly how many endangered species are up there? How many of us would notice a few less? We are the top of the food chain for a reason. Man this gets me steamed up sometimes! Sorry....that's just my two cents.
That being said, I don't think that oil refineries are a direct threat to most endangered (or non-endangered species) BUT let's not minimize the importance on animals and plants (Microscopic and otherwise) to the world. 40 percent of the medicines used today are derived from plants and animals.
For example, A small plant from Madagascar, the rosy periwinkle, produces substances that are effective in fighting two deadly cancers, Hodgkin’s disease and leukemia. Now just because I didn't know this plant existed, does not diminish the importants of the innocent looking little plant.
One of the medicines derived from the periwinkle has increased the chances of survival for children with leukemia from 20 percent to 80 percent. Think about it: eight out of ten children are now saved!!! Tell the 8 out of 10 that would normally be dying that plants and animals aren't important. Their lives depend on it!
How many children have been spared and how many more will continue to be spared because of this single rainforest plant? What if we had failed to discover this one important plant among millions before human activities had led to its extinction?
I could care less if an animal is cute, cuddly, or pretty. They are an important resource...bottom line. And all of our lives could depend on them someday.
90xjay said:
Tell me again, libs, I thought you said the war was for oil?
No way. If it were soley about oil, we'd be bombing Canada and Mexico. It's about Ethnocentrism, Religion, Politics, cultural relativism (or lack thereof), and a percieved moral high ground on both sides.
Mud4feet said:
gas rage" battles taking place, lots and lots of thought and talk of "alternative" fuels. And what happened??? Nada! My (and other) generations dropped the ball.
YES it's YOUR fault!!! Finally I have someone I can blame!! LOL :lol: JK.
Alternative fuels are a great way to become less dependant on foriegn oil. Cut down on consumption, and a pleasant and cutesy side effect is that it's good for the environment.
urple: 
