[mesinger]

Link

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Iraq should boost crude oil export capacity to 6 million barrels a day, nearly three times the amount the country currently sends to international markets, a top Kurdish political leader urged Tuesday.

The goal set by Nechirvan Barzani, the prime minister of Iraq's semiautonomous Kurdish region, gave no proposed timetables and would far exceed even the nation's peak oil output shortly before the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. But the Kurds and the Iraqi government are locked in a dispute over the rights to sign oil contracts, and export levels remain a critical issue for both sides.

"We think Iraq needs to export more oil," Barzani told a news conference.

He added that talks over Iraq's long-awaited oil law will resume within two weeks in Baghdad, according to Dow Jones Newswires.

On Monday, Iraq's oil ministry said the country's oil production and exports have risen to their highest levels since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Iraq's exports reached 2.11 million barrels a day in May while the total output - which include exports and domestic consumption - stood at about 2.5 million barrels a day, spokesman Assem Jihad told The Associated Press.

so right now they send 2 million barrels a day somewhere???? at 100 dollars a barrel mean,s what 200 million a day times 10 days equals 1 billion so in 4000 days they can pay us back what they owe for being free and all if they triple the production they can pay us 1n 1300 days less than five years...

and they sit on 115 BILIION Barrels....every American should know this every time you pick up the pump to pay through the nose thanks canyon for the edit

This post edited by mesinger 10:26 PM 06/03/2008

 

[MakoMike]

So what's the problem? Hope he gets thos well pumping sooner rather than later!

 

[Scott1280]

I'd spend less time worrying about what the Iraqi's will or won't do and put more pressure on OUR OWN GOVERNMENT to start producing more DOMESTIC OIL RESERVES.

The more we produce here, the less we have to worry about over there.

 

[shebeen]

It's only been thirty years.......

Pee hole in the snow....

The US dollar needs to get stronger....only then will the price come down.

 

[MakoMike]

shebeen wrote:

It's only been thirty years.......

Pee hole in the snow....

The US dollar needs to get stronger....only then will the price come down.

But if the dollar gets stronger it's going to really hurt exports, which could drag the whole economy down.

 

[likeitreallyis]

Scott1280 wrote:
I'd spend less time worrying about what the Iraqi's will or won't do and put more pressure on OUR OWN GOVERNMENT to start producing more DOMESTIC OIL RESERVES.

The more we produce here, the less we have to worry about over there.

Scott..

by the time the wildlife refuges are tapped, it will be somewhere by 2010 before the oil would flow,, we would see only 2 million barrells a day from our reserves, by that time demand will be 100 million barrells a day.. do you really think a difference of 100 million barrells compared to 102 million would save money?

Time for oil to disappear. Can't wait for my Chevy Volt to go into production, recharged with solar cells.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. has huge amounts of untapped oil, but pesky politicians and environmentalists won't let us get it.
That's a common cry heard from some lawmakers and nearly everyone working at an oil and gas company. If the U.S. wants to help keep the market adequately supplied with oil and perhaps lower prices they say, it needs to open up vast sections of the country currently off-limits to oil and gas exploration.
But given the amount of time it would take to get new drilling projects up and running, and the relatively small amount of oil they'd likely yield, most analysts say more drilling in the U.S. would do little to help solve the world's dual energy challenge of meeting rising demand while cutting greenhouse gasses.
Some 60% of all federal land as well as most of the East and West coasts are currently subject to drilling bans - many were put in place after a big oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, Calif., in 1969.
If these areas are not opened, it certainly won't be for lack of trying.
Oil industry executives harped on these drilling bans in testimony before Congress last week, telling lawmakers lifting them was one of the few things they could do that might have a prayer of lowering oil prices.
Several Republican-led efforts to lift the drilling bans have emerged in Congress, but they have all failed so far.
"We're the only developed country that methodically restricts access to resources," said Richard Ranger, senior policy advisor at the American Petroleum Institute. "We can't conserve our way out of this. We're going to need a mix of policies, but increasing production is going to be part of that mix."
It's hard to say how much oil lifting the bans would provide - very little exploratory drilling has been done in most of these areas.
But using estimates based on the limited information available from the Minerals Management Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Energy Information Administration, lifting the bans might boost the nation's oil production by 1 or 2 million barrels a day by sometime next decade.
These estimates are for conventional crude oil. They do not take into account the vast amounts of oil shale or tar sands that do exist in the country, but are either very expensive to develop or come with significant environmental costs.
Either way, 2 million barrels of oil is not an insignificant amount. It's roughly equal to the amount of oil currently coming from Nigeria, and would increase the current U.S. output of 8.5 million barrels a day by over 20%.
But the projects would take a long time to come online. Places like the Atlantic coast, thought to be rich in natural gas, lack drilling platforms, pipelines, terminals, storage facilities, and other energy infrastructure. EIA estimates that if Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were opened for drilling tomorrow, oil wouldn't flow at full tilt until 2025.
Plus, oil is a global market. It's true that oil pumped in the U.S. could stay in the U.S. But prices will be determined by international, not national, supply and demand.
By 2025, world consumption, currently at about 85 million barrels a day, is expected to swell to well over 100 million barrels a day. That makes 2 million barrels a day look pretty small.
"I wouldn't say it's a drop in the bucket," said Greg Priddy, a global energy analyst at the Eurasia group. "But it changes things only marginally over the long term."
Priddy said these 2 million barrels a day would need to be balanced against steep production declines expected in many non-OPEC areas like Russia, Mexico and the North Sea over the next several years. Non-OPEC production is expected to peak within the next decade or two, regardless of what the U.S. does, he said.
"It really just delays the day of reckoning a bit," he said.

 

[MakoMike]

likeitreallyis wrote:

Scott..

by the time the wildlife refuges are tapped, it will be somewhere by 2010 before the oil would flow,, we would see only 2 million barrells a day from our reserves, by that time demand will be 100 million barrells a day.. do you really think a difference of 100 million barrells compared to 102 million would save money?

Time for oil to disappear. Can't wait for my Chevy Volt to go into production, recharged with solar cells.

Only 2 Million BRD? you seem pretty sure about that. But from your own post quote:
It's hard to say how much oil lifting the bans would provide - very little exploratory drilling has been done in most of these areas.
But using estimates based on the limited information available from the Minerals Management Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Energy Information Administration, lifting the bans might boost the nation's oil production by 1 or 2 million barrels a day by sometime next decade.

So how good is that low ball estimate that's based on "limited information"? They were saying the same thing about drilling off the coast of Brazil up until a month or two ago, when they discovered one of the biggest oil fields inthe world.

The article also poo-poos shale oil and tar sands, which are now, at the current oil prices economic to develop. Canda has developed some of their shale and sand and they are selling the oil to US! Yet our Senate last week voted to prohibit the development of shale oil in Montana. I can tell you that the right people with the reight amount of money are all lined up just waiting for our feeble minded rpresentative to open up the shale and sands for development.

The time line argument also doesn't hold water (pardon the pun). If we had started tenm years ago we would have that oit now, if we wait another ten years it won't come on line for 20 years. And, here is the best part it would make us far less reliant on oil from the volitil middle east and the shieks who support radical Islam

That's not to say that developing our own oil is a subsitute for deleoping alternatibe energy, its more of a stop gap measure to get us from here to there. And also keep in mind that all the elctric cars in the world won't save a drop of oil if the electicity they need comes from oil or gas fired generators.

 

[dawnpatrol136]

likeitreallyis wrote:

Time for oil to disappear. Can't wait for my Chevy Volt to go into production, recharged with solar cells.

Tell that to China while they drill 50mi off Florida: Heartland.org. I suppose that's OK with environmentalists since it's not the evil Bushco conglomerate doing it.

LIRI...when I get my Ford Amp can we go cruising?
awesome

 

[Scott1280]

likeitreallyis wrote:
Scott1280 wrote:
I'd spend less time worrying about what the Iraqi's will or won't do and put more pressure on OUR OWN GOVERNMENT to start producing more DOMESTIC OIL RESERVES.

The more we produce here, the less we have to worry about over there.

Scott..

by the time the wildlife refuges are tapped, it will be somewhere by 2010 before the oil would flow,, we would see only 2 million barrells a day from our reserves, by that time demand will be 100 million barrells a day.. do you really think a difference of 100 million barrells compared to 102 million would save money?

LIRI - We have been hearing the "it would take years" argument for too many years now. If the "10 years before we would really start to see oil" clock had started when Bush first proposed it 7 years ago, we'd only be a few years away from actually seeing that crude on the street.

You are also forgetting that allot of the barrel prices you hear are FUTURES being traded (as far out as 2014) and I think the price would plummet of the government of the US changed course and said "we're going to utilize our domestic oil capacity to the fullest extent possible. All of those futures traders pushing up the price now would get slaughtered in the markets.

likeitreallyis wrote:
Time for oil to disappear. Can't wait for my Chevy Volt to go into production, recharged with solar cells.

And what do we do with the batteries after they are no longer usable? What do you do in Seattle where it is cloudy so much? And when more and more cars are electric powered, plugging into the national grid to be recharged, our electric generating capacity will be strained too, causing more fuel to be consumed to produce electricity.

I'm all for developing all sorts of new forms of energy, but while they try and get there,for real, let's not cripple ourselves in the mean time.

Thanks for the article. Here are some highlights:

Some 60% of all federal land as well as most of the East and West coasts are currently subject to drilling bans - many were put in place after a big oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, Calif., in 1969.
If these areas are not opened, it certainly won't be for lack of trying.

So because of something that happened 39 years ago, even with all of the technological advances since, we're still cutting our own throats? Geee, that makes sense.

"We're the only developed country that methodically restricts access to resources," said Richard Ranger, senior policy advisor at the American Petroleum Institute. "We can't conserve our way out of this. We're going to need a mix of policies, but increasing production is going to be part of that mix."

It's hard to say how much oil lifting the bans would provide - very little exploratory drilling has been done in most of these areas.
But using estimates based on the limited information available from the Minerals Management Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Energy Information Administration, lifting the bans might boost the nation's oil production by 1 or 2 million barrels a day by sometime next decade.
These estimates are for conventional crude oil. They do not take into account the vast amounts of oil shale or tar sands that do exist in the country, but are either very expensive to develop or come with significant environmental costs.

Either way, 2 million barrels of oil is not an insignificant amount. It's roughly equal to the amount of oil currently coming from Nigeria, and would increase the current U.S. output of 8.5 million barrels a day by over 20%.

Any political turmoil in a country like Nigeria negative effects world oil prices, so YES, I absolutely believe increasing our domestic production by 20%+ would make a difference.


But the projects would take a long time to come online. Places like the Atlantic coast, thought to be rich in natural gas, lack drilling platforms, pipelines, terminals, storage facilities, and other energy infrastructure. EIA estimates that if Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were opened for drilling tomorrow, oil wouldn't flow at full tilt until 2025.

And the longer we delay, the longer it will take. Do you realize that if we had built all of the Nuclear Power Plants that were on the drawing boards when Carter put the moratorium on building them back in 1979 we would have ALREADY been in compliance with the requirements of the Kyoto protocols today?! The problems are continuing to get WORSE, NOT BETTER, and doing nothing only accelerates the process.

Plus, oil is a global market. It's true that oil pumped in the U.S. could stay in the U.S. But prices will be determined by international, not national, supply and demand.
By 2025, world consumption, currently at about 85 million barrels a day, is expected to swell to well over 100 million barrels a day. That makes 2 million barrels a day look pretty small.

But will consumption be any less if we don't increase production?

"I wouldn't say it's a drop in the bucket," said Greg Priddy, a global energy analyst at the Eurasia group. "But it changes things only marginally over the long term."

Priddy said these 2 million barrels a day would need to be balanced against steep production declines expected in many non-OPEC areas like Russia, Mexico and the North Sea over the next several years. Non-OPEC production is expected to peak within the next decade or two, regardless of what the U.S. does, he said.
"It really just delays the day of reckoning a bit," he said.
So why bother?

Then there's the argument that if we make it hurt more, we'll have to come up with better ways so it is just "tough love". That sounds allot to me like wanting to throw a baby in the ocean because it has no choice but to learn how to swim. You willing to do that with your baby??

 

[mesinger]

OMG

all you guys are so much more smarter than me....all I wanted to know was when will fuel ever go back to three dollars I swear I wont complain about it ever again

 

[Striper77]

Probably never. You will see $6 before you see $3.
Electric cars are not a total answer, if we are going to charge them up we need more power plants, more electric distribution, etc. Electric changes the source of the energy, does not eliminate the use ( although it is probably a lot more efficient and should be promoted ). Until we get some nukes built to produce power ( 15 years away if we start right now ), we are stuck using oil and coal.

 

[MakoMike]

Striper77 wrote:
Probably never. You will see $6 before you see $3.
Electric cars are not a total answer, if we are going to charge them up we need more power plants, more electric distribution, etc. Electric changes the source of the energy, does not eliminate the use ( although it is probably a lot more efficient and should be promoted ). Until we get some nukes built to produce power ( 15 years away if we start right now ), we are stuck using oil and coal.



Electric only changes the source of the energy if the elctric is produced in a non-oil fired plant.

 

[Striper77]

Thats what I meant, did not word it properly.