Drill here drill now is BS

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
A new report out today from the International Energy Agency (IEA) that forecasts the potential for vastly increased oil production out of Iraq.


Iraq used to be a major oil power, but years of anti-Saddam sanctions in the 1990s and the 2003 U.S. war and its destructive aftermath reduce production to nothing.


Oil production has picked up significantly recently, however, reaching 3 million barrels a day, enough to help offset the loss of Iranian oil.


Now the IEA suggests that Iraq could produce much, much more.


The report suggest that with the right investment, Iraq can be expected to double oil production to 6.1 million barrels a day by 2020, and could reach up to 8.3 million barrels a day by 2030.


If that happens it would make Iraq—not the U.S., Canada or any other country—by far the largest contributor to global oil supply growth.


For a thirsty Chinese economy, Iraq—well situated geographically—could be a major supplier.


In the supply side of the global oil equation, Iraq is by far the most important player. How much additional oil Iraq can bring to production will have an enormous effect on oil markets.


It’s not just that Iraq has a lot of oil—the third-largest conventional resources in the world.


It’s that Iraqi oil is much cheaper to produce than the costly unconventional oil that politicians like Romney are counting on in the U.S. and Canada.


That means Iraq can scale up productions significantly without bankrupting itself—and it can sell that oil at the world market without fear that they might lose money should prices suddenly drop.


(Unconventional oil like Canadian oil sands and U.S. shale oil tends only to be profitable if oil prices remain high, which is one reason why tapping those supplies won’t automatically lead to cheap gasoline at the pumps.)


Iraq is a major new energy powerhouse.

 
Jarod said:
As I predicted, nobody is chanting "drill baby drill" this year.
Click to expand...

They aren't?

Rmoney claims that Obama won't allow drilling on public lands....


The facts show, and President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney agree, that U.S. production of oil and gas has increased over the past four years.

But is this rise because of Obama, or "in spite of his policies," as the former Massachusetts governor said at Wednesday night's debate?



"All of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land," Romney said. "On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half."



http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-oil-gas/index.html

 
\\((|))// said:
They aren't?

Rmoney claims that Obama won't allow drilling on public lands....


The facts show, and President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney agree, that U.S. production of oil and gas has increased over the past four years.

But is this rise because of Obama, or "in spite of his policies," as the former Massachusetts governor said at Wednesday night's debate?



"All of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land," Romney said. "On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half."



http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-oil-gas/index.html

Click to expand...

He doesn't just claim it, it is true. Drilling on public lands has been reduced by more than 40% under Obama. Drilling in N. Dakota has gone on in spite of, rather than because of, Obama's policy.

As for Jarod, getting off the foreign oil teat is a National Defense issue.
 
The Tax-Payers gets it in the end?!!

 
The taliban is growing stronger in iraq. When they take over, do you think their priority is going to be the production of oil? And what do you think OPEC is going to do? Everybody gets a quota, with another producer back on line, everyone can slack off a little on production, and prices stay right around 100 bucks a barrel. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to to give OPEC the finger?
 
Damocles said:
He doesn't just claim it, it is true. Drilling on public lands has been reduced by more than 40% under Obama. Drilling in N. Dakota has gone on in spite of, rather than because of, Obama's policy.
Click to expand...


This statement raises a few questions.

Firstly, has there been more oil and gas production, relatively, on private lands versus federal lands?

Secondly, does the federal government, through regulations and license approvals, have any impact on oil and gas production on private land?

And last, can "all" the increase in production be tied to production on private lands?

There is no dispute that natural gas production on private lands has increased.

Meanwhile, natural gas production on federal and Indian lands has steadily fallen, a trend that began around fall 2002.

This is due to a consistent decrease in offshore gas drilling, though such gas production onshore, on federal lands, is actually higher now than it was at the end of the Bush administration.

Overall, the percentage of U.S.-produced natural gas from federal lands -- relative to that produced from private ones -- fell significantly over the past eight years, from 35% to 21%...

Oil production is more a mixed bag.

On state and private lands, oil production was actually going down in the 2000s, leveled off between fiscal years 2007 and 2010, then went up by 385,000 barrels a day in fiscal year 2011, when the most recent data are available...

On federal and Indian lands, as well as federally approved offshore drilling sites, oil production went up from 1.6 million barrels per day to 2 million barrels per day between fiscal years 2008 and 2010.

But it dropped to 1.8 million barrels per day for the last fiscal year available, a decrease that the U.S. Energy Information Administration attributes to the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Despite the one-year drop in production, oil production on federal and Indian lands from 2009 through 2011 totaled 2.027 million barrels.

That's an average of 675,000 barrels per year during Obama's term, compared to an average annual production of 609,000 barrels annually during Bush's last term.

Now, moving onto the second part of Romney's statement -- that Obama's "administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half."

Fewer leases have been granted under the first three years of Obama's administration, compared to the last few years under Bush.

Fewer drilling permits have also been issued, for these lands.

During the last three fiscal years totally under Bush, there were 9,661 "new leases" granted for federal lands.

For the three most recent fiscal years (which includes a few months of Bush's administration), there were 5,568 such new leases.

This works out to a 42.4% decrease.

Take the same comparable periods for drilling permits on federal lands.

There were 20,479 for the last three years under Bush, then 12,821 for the most recent three including much of Obama's first term.

This is a 37.4% decrease.

There has been more oil and natural production on private lands than in federally controlled areas. So Romney is correct in pointing out an imbalance.

But it is an overstatement to say that "all of the increase" has been on private lands -- since, by definition, new permits and licenses have been granted for federal lands (bringing in more gas and oil).

Romney's claim that Obama's administration has "cut the number of permits and licenses in half" for federal lands is also not on the mark.

True, there has been a significant drop -- one tied, in part, to the unprecedented Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Yet the actual numbers of permits and licenses haven't been "cut ... in half."

As mentioned above (and including data from part of the Bush administration), there has been a 42% decrease in leases and 37% decrease in drilling permits -- not 50%, as Romney implied.

The Institute for Energy Research acknowledged that "this decrease isn't a result of President Obama's policies exclusively, but it is the result of decades and policies that have systematically reduced energy production on federal lands."




http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-oil-gas/index.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top