Jump to content
IGNORED

gas prices


mtsalmela80
Note: This thread is 4218 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

hmm, it was only a couple posts ago that you stated that coal production was at the same levels as during the Bush administration, but now you are conceding that 20% have been shut down?

I'll admit I did mess up a bit, but what I said was true. Coal production, as in mining, is on par. Coal power generation is not. Though I did say production, what I really meant was generation. So while my words were correct, what I intended to say was incorrect. [quote name="mtsalmela80" url="/t/55957/gas-prices/108#post_689971"] LOL so up until Obama took office, all the coal plants that were ALREADY operating were "selling out the environment". Sorry I don't buy that for a minute. [/quote] You don't think coal plants are bad for the environment? What about mining? What about coal slurries, the product of washing coal? TitleistWI didn't even mention President Obama in his post.

In my bag:

Driver: Titleist TSi3 | 15º 3-Wood: Ping G410 | 17º 2-Hybrid: Ping G410 | 19º 3-Iron: TaylorMade GAPR Lo |4-PW Irons: Nike VR Pro Combo | 54º SW, 60º LW: Titleist Vokey SM8 | Putter: Odyssey Toulon Las Vegas H7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

While I wish I was rich, making money hand over fist, so that gas prices wouldn't phase me in the least, I'm not. I'm at an economical point where when fuel spikes, it hurts, fuel is a double digit percentage of my income.

I'm frankly sick and tired of all the environmentalist freaks stating that developing some oil and gas for ourselves is going immediately lead to BLACK SKIES, BLACK SEAS, DIRTY AIR, POISONED WATER.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Right now, the ability for my son to continue eating and getting fresh clothes on his back is a little more important than the perceived environmental impact, as stated so by the extreme left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

While I wish I was rich, making money hand over fist, so that gas prices wouldn't phase me in the least, I'm not. I'm at an economical point where when fuel spikes, it hurts, fuel is a double digit percentage of my income.

I'm frankly sick and tired of all the environmentalist freaks stating that developing some oil and gas for ourselves is going immediately lead to BLACK SKIES, BLACK SEAS, DIRTY AIR, POISONED WATER.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Right now, the ability for my son to continue eating and getting fresh clothes on his back is a little more important than the perceived environmental impact, as stated so by the extreme left.

Natural gas production is at an all time high, and prices are dropping through the floor. And its cleaner. So why am I paying more per unit for electricity than last year? Maybe it's because the power company can keep using whatever generation technology they've already built, and there is nothing I can do about it. it's not like I can say "I'm just going to start lighting my home with candles, washing my clothes in the lake behind my house, and cooking my food outside over an open fire." that's ridiculous. No one is going to do that--and therefore the utility will keep paying whatever they can for electricity and generating it however they can. Is it so bad that the president might try to force a company that everyone must contract with to take measures that, in the long run, are good for the environment and better for consumers? And again, with gasoline. The price will continue to go up. The reserves you mention are not producible on the market with $50/bbl oil. They will not be economically exploited unless they can sell the production for $70-80 or higher per bbl. "opening up" the reserves is not some magic cure. The transition to the next energy technology will be painful and expensive during the transition period. We can do it now and pay $4-10/gal during the transition, or we can do it in 15 years and pay who knows? $25/gal? That's when I'll be thinking about retirement. Let's do it then.

Kevin

Titleist 910 D3 9.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Titleist 910F 13.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Adams Idea A12 Pro hybrid 18*; 23* with RIP S flex
Titleist 712 AP2 4-9 iron with KBS C-Taper, S+ flex
Titleist Vokey SM wedges 48*, 52*, 58*
Odyssey White Hot 2-ball mallet, center shaft, 34"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Natural gas production is at an all time high, and prices are dropping through the floor. And its cleaner. So why am I paying more per unit for electricity than last year? Maybe it's because the power company can keep using whatever generation technology they've already built, and there is nothing I can do about it. it's not like I can say "I'm just going to start lighting my home with candles, washing my clothes in the lake behind my house, and cooking my food outside over an open fire." that's ridiculous. No one is going to do that--and therefore the utility will keep paying whatever they can for electricity and generating it however they can. Is it so bad that the president might try to force a company that everyone must contract with to take measures that, in the long run, are good for the environment and better for consumers? And again, with gasoline. The price will continue to go up. The reserves you mention are not producible on the market with $50/bbl oil. They will not be economically exploited unless they can sell the production for $70-80 or higher per bbl. "opening up" the reserves is not some magic cure. The transition to the next energy technology will be painful and expensive during the transition period. We can do it now and pay $4-10/gal during the transition, or we can do it in 15 years and pay who knows? $25/gal? That's when I'll be thinking about retirement. Let's do it then.

Any change to the energy policy that is pushed by uncle sam will be painful. It does not have to be painful. Energy companies are the best ones to determine at what point in time, and to what technology, we are going to move to. The government cannot dictate that we are going to move to solar energy and demand the companies do it. That's not how this country works, and its already been proven to fail. Why should the move to alternative energy create a spike in petrol? If anything, competition should cause prices to drop. This price increase is a deliberate tactic by our government to punish oil companies, and for the umpteenth time, the people who they are really punishing are people like me, who cannot afford the outrageous rates. Barrack Hussein Obama said a number of things before the election in 2008: 1. "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" 2. "If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.’ " 3. He is in favor of higher gas prices, if they are gradual Today we are seeing the results of his promises, and it only gets worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades


I'm not a fan of Obama, but he, nor any President doesn't set the price of a barrel of oil.  NY is part of the reason you're paying such high prices for gas since they add taxes at a flat and variable rate to every gallon you purchase.

Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

Any change to the energy policy that is pushed by uncle sam will be painful. It does not have to be painful. Energy companies are the best ones to determine at what point in time, and to what technology, we are going to move to. The government cannot dictate that we are going to move to solar energy and demand the companies do it. That's not how this country works, and its already been proven to fail.

Why should the move to alternative energy create a spike in petrol? If anything, competition should cause prices to drop. This price increase is a deliberate tactic by our government to punish oil companies, and for the umpteenth time, the people who they are really punishing are people like me, who cannot afford the outrageous rates.

Barrack Hussein Obama said a number of things before the election in 2008:

1. "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"

2. "If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.’ "

3. He is in favor of higher gas prices, if they are gradual

Today we are seeing the results of his promises, and it only gets worse.



Joe Paradiso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades


Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

Any change to the energy policy that is pushed by uncle sam will be painful. It does not have to be painful. Energy companies are the best ones to determine at what point in time, and to what technology, we are going to move to. The government cannot dictate that we are going to move to solar energy and demand the companies do it. That's not how this country works, and its already been proven to fail.

Why should the move to alternative energy create a spike in petrol? If anything, competition should cause prices to drop. This price increase is a deliberate tactic by our government to punish oil companies, and for the umpteenth time, the people who they are really punishing are people like me, who cannot afford the outrageous rates.

So the market is the best vehicle to control energy production and prices, but you're mad at the President because he's not doing enough to keep prices down?

You are blinded by your hatred for the President.  The only time people like you ever use his full name, you have to include the word "Hussein", which is the post-9/11 equivalent of the n-word.  I get it that's the name that he was given when he was born, but he has never used his middle name.  The only people who use his middle name are those who hate him, and they do it in some childish effort to unfairly associate him with racist stereotypes and terrorists.

Back on topic.  This thread isn't supposed to be about Politics, or the President.  It's supposed to be about the market.

You started this thread to talk about gas prices being too high.  I gather from your numerous posts that $2/gal gas is what you think the price should be.  Please explain to me how "the market" is going to achieve this by exploiting all of the US reserves you have described, if it costs them $70-80/bbl or more to get the oil out of the ground.  Clearly you think it will, and I don't understand it.  Explain it to me.

Also, the move to alternative energy isn't going to drive prices up.  Intense demand pressure from hundreds of millions of new energy consumers in China and India is, combined with an extreme lag in refining capacity.   The shift to alternative energy is supposed to relieve the price pressure by providing something to compete with oil.  The "energy market" is, at this point in time, basically oil companies.  The oil companies have ZERO incentive to do develop alternative energy technologies, because they know that we all have to buy their product, regardless of what it costs.  Any alternative energy technology they develop is going to instantly undermine their core business model.

Again, can you point to ONE SPECIFIC thing that President Obama has done that have driven up the price of gasoline?  Don't say the pipeline:  that wouldn't have been finished for 10 years.  If you list all the untapped reserves, please explain in specific monetary terms how they would lower the price per bbl of oil below $50.  If your answer doesn't address the costs of production at those sites, it's not an intelligent response.

Before you can evaluate all of the political claims about how the President is killing energy, you have to look for yourself into the economics of energy.  If you don't personally understand energy economics at the micro and macro level, then all you're doing is spreading hate propaganda.

There is an intelligent answer to this question that argues everything is Obama's fault.  It doesn't involve his specific bad decisions, though.  He is so hated, and has so much hate propaganda circulated about him on a daily basis, that his mere presence in Washington might be enough to inject uncertainty into the market.  Mind you, most of this hate propaganda is completely made up, and most opinions about his performance are completely political and unfactual.  However, the intense hatred of him, and polar opposition to anything he says, is enough to make him an ineffective President.  It could also be enough to create uncertainty in the energy market.  I guess the argument would go like this, basically: any decision that the President could make with regards to energy, including how to deal with Iran, the market assumes that he'll make the wrong decision.  This isn't based on a by-issue assessment of his actual plans, policies, and proposals:  simply a visceral reaction to him as a man.  However, so long as he's in office, every assessment of the energy sector from within the commodities market is going to be a worse-case assessment for supply, therefore driving up the market price of oil.

In theory, this could explain why oil prices are high at this instant even though real consumption in the US is down, and the market is glutted with unrefined crude.  I don't think it ever makes sense to try to analyze a market from any single point on a curve, though--you have to step back and look at the curve over time.

Kevin

Titleist 910 D3 9.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Titleist 910F 13.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Adams Idea A12 Pro hybrid 18*; 23* with RIP S flex
Titleist 712 AP2 4-9 iron with KBS C-Taper, S+ flex
Titleist Vokey SM wedges 48*, 52*, 58*
Odyssey White Hot 2-ball mallet, center shaft, 34"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Obama stated before he was elected his plan was to drive up energy costs. Did you not read the two direct quotes I provided above? Do you think I made them up?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

Obama stated before he was elected his plan was to drive up energy costs. Did you not read the two direct quotes I provided above? Do you think I made them up?


I asked you what he did, not what he said.  Did you not read the direct question I asked above?

Unless you think he doubled the global price of oil by making a speech.  And a campaign speech, at that.  He is like some evil superman.

Kevin

Titleist 910 D3 9.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Titleist 910F 13.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Adams Idea A12 Pro hybrid 18*; 23* with RIP S flex
Titleist 712 AP2 4-9 iron with KBS C-Taper, S+ flex
Titleist Vokey SM wedges 48*, 52*, 58*
Odyssey White Hot 2-ball mallet, center shaft, 34"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

When the price of oil is manipulated by speculation, you better bet your bottom dollar the "leader of the free world" can affect it with his words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

When the price of oil is manipulated by speculation, you better bet your bottom dollar the "leader of the free world" can affect it with his words.

Just want to make sure we understand each other. You don't believe he has actually personally done anything. You think that he's responsible for the increase in gasoline prices because of a campaign speech. FWIW, during the 2008 DNC (nominating convention), the averge price of gasoline in the US was just under $4. (Edit: actually, the $4/gal price happened in the first half of August 2008. By the time of the convention during the last week of August, pump prices were down to about a $3.60 average. Must have been all of those speeches.)

Kevin

Titleist 910 D3 9.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Titleist 910F 13.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Adams Idea A12 Pro hybrid 18*; 23* with RIP S flex
Titleist 712 AP2 4-9 iron with KBS C-Taper, S+ flex
Titleist Vokey SM wedges 48*, 52*, 58*
Odyssey White Hot 2-ball mallet, center shaft, 34"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

His failures are his in-actions, not his actions. He has repeatedly said you can expect energy prices to go up under his regime. Under his administration, gasoline as gone up, electricity as gone up, coal is on its way out the window.....but I guess we do have free condoms! I'll tell you what barrack, if you want to start paying for the recreational activities of your citizenry, how about throwing me some money for my greens fees.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

His failures are his in-actions, not his actions.


He can't do much with congress blocking or butchering every piece of legislation he tries to introduce. You try making things happen without getting funding, and see how far you get.

You're probably just mad because the free condoms aren't benefitting you...

In My Bag:

Adams Super LS 9.5˚ driver, Aldila Phenom NL 65TX
Adams Super LS 15˚ fairway, Kusala black 72x
Adams Super LS 18˚ fairway, Aldila Rip'd NV 75TX
Adams Idea pro VST hybrid, 21˚, RIP Alpha 105x
Adams DHY 24˚, RIP Alpha 89x
5-PW Maltby TE irons, KBS C taper X, soft stepped once 130g
Mizuno T4, 54.9 KBS Wedge X
Mizuno R12 60.5, black nickel, KBS Wedge X
Odyssey Metal X #1 putter 
Bridgestone E5, Adidas samba bag, True Linkswear Stealth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

If anyone is interested, I'd like to have an intelligent, fact-based discussion about the economics of energy.  I'm open to ideas and arguments, facts and inferences, if anyone has them.  I"ll post some stuff I've been looking at, which may be wrong or incomplete, or may not support the conclusions that I'm making.  None of this is scientific study stuff, just representative of stuff you'll find if you google "what's really up with..." with respect to any of these issues.  If anyone has real learnin in any of these issues and wants to share, I'm always interested in learning.

I'd like to start with the oft-repeated claims of "200-years of oil at current consumption rates" just waiting to be exploited if the government would get out of the way.

Here's a link to a Kiplinger blog post; it describes the various untapped reserves which are often cited as what we could be producing if President Obama would just get out of the way.

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html

I post this for two reasons:  1) it describes the oft-cited reserves succinctly, and 2) I see this exact language quoted or pasted into discussions about this issue frequently.  Frequently, people point out the environmental/government restrictions impeding exploiting these resources and say "Look how BHO is ruining our country."  Which I think is funny, because this text was published in June of 2008, and these talking points were conceived and refined from 2006-2008 to counter arguments that the oil companies and OPEC were in some cabal to artificially inflate prices.  In other words, these words were initially written to defend the oil companies and government from attack by the consumer, and are now ironically being used as an attack point against a democratic President.

The amounts of oil in these reserves are disputed.

The Bakken fields contain somewhere between 2 billion and 500 billion barrels, depending on who you beileve and how you measure. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/us-offshore-oil-reserves/

Cost to exploit is tougher to measure.  Here's a cut-n-paste from an information blog for ND Bakken fields that suggests $4-14/bbl production costs, which is profitable at $40/bbl oil: http://milliondollarway.blogspot.com/p/about-this-site.html

What does it cost the operator/producer to extract a barrel of oil equivalent  (BOE extraction cost) from the Bakken?

I have refrained from talking about the BOE extraction cost because I think the numbers can be manipulated even more than the IPs. However, more and more folks are asking that question, and I will start posting some numbers as I see them. I doubt I will go looking for them. For me, it's not worth the effort. BEXP and WLL have been particularly forthcoming with their estimates of their BOE extracton cost in their corporate presentations which are easy to access at their home page. I was unable to find comparable reporting by EOG. In general, in 2009, the number I saw most frequently was $12 - $14 to extract a barrel of oil from the Bakken.
On page 5 of the 4Q, 2010, Hess earnings conference call, Hess said "the Bakken is robust at $40 . It returns the cost of capital at $40. So that’s why we feel very confident kind of pulling the trigger on the Bakken now and aggressively going after a five year program." In NOG's earnings statement for 1Q11, NOG spokesman said production cost was $4 - $5/bbl

But Bakken reserves are shale, which requires fracking and has traditionally had much higher cost-estimates for production.  See generally (yeah, it's wiki--but seems to be a decent entry): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics

The various attempts to develop oil shale deposits have succeeded only when the cost of shale-oil production in a given region comes in below the price of crude oil or its other substitutes. According to a survey conducted by the RAND Corporation , the cost of producing a barrel of oil at a surface retorting complex in the United States (comprising a mine, retorting plant , upgrading plant , supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation), would range between US$ 70–95 ($440–600/m 3 , adjusted to 2005 values). This estimate considers varying levels of kerogen quality and extraction efficiency. In order for the operation to be profitable, the price of crude oil would need to remain above these levels. The analysis also discusses the expectation that processing costs would drop after the complex was established. The hypothetical unit would see a cost reduction of 35–70% after its first 500 million barrels (79 × 10 ^ 6 m 3 ) were produced. Assuming an increase in output of 25 thousand barrels per day (4.0 × 10 ^ 3 m 3 /d) during each year after the start of commercial production, the costs would then be expected to decline to $35–48 per barrel ($220–300/m 3 ) within 12 years. After achieving the milestone of 1 billion barrels (160 × 10 ^ 6 m 3 ), its costs would decline further to $30–40 per barrel ($190–250/m 3 ). [

So I'm no energy economist, but here's what I take from this stuff about Bakken:

1. The reserve estimates are somewhere between "a lot of oil" and "an unfathomable buttload of oil."  It's hard to tell--I typically assume that the truth lies in the middle, but the USGS estimates are the lowest (5 billion), the most active developer in Bakken estimates 25 billion, and the un-attributed propaganda estimate is 500-billion.  I guess the 25 billion estimate is the most reasonable of the three.

2. Costs to produce.  The $14/bbl cost estimate seems low.  That seems like it could be a possibly realizable cost estimate for a mature production environment (10-15 years in) if the fields are very productive.  In the shorter term, north of $50/bbl seems likely.  Note that the Bakken explosion has really only happened since 2010, when oil prices have been well above $80.

Here's a WSJ article about Bakken production.  Very small production numbers currently.  The article cites the USGS 5 billion barrel estimate and suggests profitability in the $50-$80/bbl range. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703795004575087623756596514.html

Again, I don't know what is right.  It's hard to find anything written on this stuff that isn't biased.  Everyone who gets paid to write about this stuff has an agenda (or is paid by someone with an agenda), which leads to cherry-picking data and facts.

Kevin

Titleist 910 D3 9.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Titleist 910F 13.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Adams Idea A12 Pro hybrid 18*; 23* with RIP S flex
Titleist 712 AP2 4-9 iron with KBS C-Taper, S+ flex
Titleist Vokey SM wedges 48*, 52*, 58*
Odyssey White Hot 2-ball mallet, center shaft, 34"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Any change to the energy policy that is pushed by uncle sam will be painful. It does not have to be painful. Energy companies are the best ones to determine at what point in time, and to what technology, we are going to move to. The government cannot dictate that we are going to move to solar energy and demand the companies do it. That's not how this country works, and its already been proven to fail.

Uncle sam has long meddled in the types of energy that we use. Before railroads, which were heavily funded by public money, central coal power plants would have been impossible. Localized DC current power supplies first popped up in cities, but were overtaken by centralized AC current partly because the states allowed them to become regulated monopolies. The government stepped in and broke up Standard OIl when they were deemed to be an illegal monopoly. Many of the biggest rivers in the country have been dammed using federal money (though many people don't consider hydroelectric power renewable. It emits no carbon dioxide but dammed rivers often collect organic matter that then breaks down and releases methane, which is much more of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide). The federally-funded construction of interstates and major highways had a huge impact on the kinds and amounts of energy used. The government had a huge impact in the 70s. Nixon's Project Independence encouraged domestic drilling on federal lands and energy independence, partly by investing in mass transit, domestic coal, and alternative energy. The Energy Tax Act emphasized conservation and the 1978 Fuel Use Act restricted building of natural gas and oil power plants, and encouraged coal and nuclear ones. Laws have been enacted to curtain acid rain-causing sulfur and ozone layer-depleting CFCs. There are contentious clauses in the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts to exempt fracking. That's without even mentioning subsidies. The numbers are tough to pin down, but from what I understand, the government invested equally between fossil fuels and renewables between the mid-70s and early-2000s (though both trail nuclear by nearly half), but between about 2003 and 2008, the subsidies for renewables were about a third that of those for fossil fuels (though that's only my understanding; I believe the numbers but I wouldn't bet my life on them). It's been argued that there isn't a single energy source we use that hasn't been subsidized.

In my bag:

Driver: Titleist TSi3 | 15º 3-Wood: Ping G410 | 17º 2-Hybrid: Ping G410 | 19º 3-Iron: TaylorMade GAPR Lo |4-PW Irons: Nike VR Pro Combo | 54º SW, 60º LW: Titleist Vokey SM8 | Putter: Odyssey Toulon Las Vegas H7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

There are no facts here. It is all biased by your world view. Are oil shales a savior (cheap energy for 10-50 years) or a disaster (global warming, aquafier destroyer), or just not practical (i.e. there isn't anywhere near enough water to get enough oil out). right now I am leaning towards not practical but that number changes all the time. But you can't force technology. it evolves (or doesn't ) at its own pace. You can try and nudge it along.

In the 90s when CARB pretty much mandated electric cars, the technology wasn't there (yes I know about the EV1. It wasn't remotely practical from a cost point of view). Today we are close (cost is still a bit high).  If (big if) battery technology continues at the  current pace for another 10-20 years, they will be a pretty legitimate alternative in a world with 5 dollar gas.  On the other hand a ton of money has been spend on fuel cell cars over the same time period. As far as I can tell they are more like 30+ years away unless some breakthrough is made. And lets not talk about fusion. That has been 30 years away for 50 years.

ANWR and the offshore stuff is easier in that we know how to get it out. That all comes down to what you feel the cost is (mainly environmental) and benefits (a couple years of oil). Over the past 30+ years it hasn't made it up the list of things to develop. It is tough since it requires 10+ years of lead time (i.e. Clinton or Bush would have had to start the development) which in an eternity in politics.

And finally even if the US could produce enough oil for its own needs, oil is a global market place. Oil will be more expensive even if we exploit all of the US reserves. It will be just a bit less expensive. Unless of course we didn't something socialist like nationalize our oil production.

Quote:

If anyone is interested, I'd like to have an intelligent, fact-based discussion about the economics of energy.  I'm open to ideas and arguments, facts and inferences, if anyone has them.  I"ll post some stuff I've been looking at, which may be wrong or incomplete, or may not support the conclusions that I'm making.  None of this is scientific study stuff, just representative of stuff you'll find if you google "what's really up with..." with respect to any of these issues.  If anyone has real learnin in any of these issues and wants to share, I'm always interested in learning.

I'd like to start with the oft-repeated claims of "200-years of oil at current consumption rates" just waiting to be exploited if the government would get out of the way.

Here's a link to a Kiplinger blog post; it describes the various untapped reserves which are often cited as what we could be producing if President Obama would just get out of the way.

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html

I post this for two reasons:  1) it describes the oft-cited reserves succinctly, and 2) I see this exact language quoted or pasted into discussions about this issue frequently.  Frequently, people point out the environmental/government restrictions impeding exploiting these resources and say "Look how BHO is ruining our country."  Which I think is funny, because this text was published in June of 2008, and these talking points were conceived and refined from 2006-2008 to counter arguments that the oil companies and OPEC were in some cabal to artificially inflate prices.  In other words, these words were initially written to defend the oil companies and government from attack by the consumer, and are now ironically being used as an attack point against a democratic President.

The amounts of oil in these reserves are disputed.

The Bakken fields contain somewhere between 2 billion and 500 billion barrels, depending on who you beileve and how you measure.  http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/us-offshore-oil-reserves/

Cost to exploit is tougher to measure.  Here's a cut-n-paste from an information blog for ND Bakken fields that suggests $4-14/bbl production costs, which is profitable at $40/bbl oil: http://milliondollarway.blogspot.com/p/about-this-site.html

What does it cost the operator/producer to extract a barrel of oil equivalent  (BOE extraction cost) from the Bakken?

I have refrained from talking about the BOE extraction cost because I think the numbers can be manipulated even more than the IPs. However, more and more folks are asking that question, and I will start posting some numbers as I see them. I doubt I will go looking for them. For me, it's not worth the effort. BEXP and WLL have been particularly forthcoming with their estimates of their BOE extracton cost in their corporate presentations which are easy to access at their home page. I was unable to find comparable reporting by EOG. In general, in 2009, the number I saw most frequently was $12 - $14 to extract a barrel of oil from the Bakken.

On page 5 of the 4Q, 2010, Hess earnings conference call, Hess said "the Bakken is robust at $40. It returns the cost of capital at $40. So that’s why we feel very confident kind of pulling the trigger on the Bakken now and aggressively going after a five year program." In NOG's earnings statement for 1Q11, NOG spokesman said production cost was $4 - $5/bbl

But Bakken reserves are shale, which requires fracking and has traditionally had much higher cost-estimates for production.  See generally (yeah, it's wiki--but seems to be a decent entry):  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics

The various attempts to develop oil shale deposits have succeeded only when the cost of shale-oil production in a given region comes in below the price of crude oil or its other substitutes. According to a survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, the cost of producing a barrel of oil at a surface retorting complex in the United States (comprising a mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation), would range between US$70–95 ($440–600/m3, adjusted to 2005 values). This estimate considers varying levels of kerogen quality and extraction efficiency. In order for the operation to be profitable, the price of crude oil would need to remain above these levels. The analysis also discusses the expectation that processing costs would drop after the complex was established. The hypothetical unit would see a cost reduction of 35–70% after its first 500 million barrels (79×10^6 m3) were produced. Assuming an increase in output of 25 thousand barrels per day (4.0×10^3 m3/d) during each year after the start of commercial production, the costs would then be expected to decline to $35–48 per barrel ($220–300/m3) within 12 years. After achieving the milestone of 1 billion barrels (160×10^6 m3), its costs would decline further to $30–40 per barrel ($190–250/m3).[

So I'm no energy economist, but here's what I take from this stuff about Bakken:

1. The reserve estimates are somewhere between "a lot of oil" and "an unfathomable buttload of oil."  It's hard to tell--I typically assume that the truth lies in the middle, but the USGS estimates are the lowest (5 billion), the most active developer in Bakken estimates 25 billion, and the un-attributed propaganda estimate is 500-billion.  I guess the 25 billion estimate is the most reasonable of the three.

2. Costs to produce.  The $14/bbl cost estimate seems low.  That seems like it could be a possibly realizable cost estimate for a mature production environment (10-15 years in) if the fields are very productive.  In the shorter term, north of $50/bbl seems likely.  Note that the Bakken explosion has really only happened since 2010, when oil prices have been well above $80.

Here's a WSJ article about Bakken production.  Very small production numbers currently.  The article cites the USGS 5 billion barrel estimate and suggests profitability in the $50-$80/bbl range.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703795004575087623756596514.html

Again, I don't know what is right.  It's hard to find anything written on this stuff that isn't biased.  Everyone who gets paid to write about this stuff has an agenda (or is paid by someone with an agenda), which leads to cherry-picking data and facts.



Link to comment
Share on other sites



Oh a personal attack? Thank you for conceding your argument.

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

He can't do much with congress blocking or butchering every piece of legislation he tries to introduce. You try making things happen without getting funding, and see how far you get.

You're probably just mad because the free condoms aren't benefitting you...



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades


Also I wasn't aware that the president had the authority to introduce legislation, thought that was Congresses job, but I guess you are right, after all you resorted to personal attacks.

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

He can't do much with congress blocking or butchering every piece of legislation he tries to introduce. You try making things happen without getting funding, and see how far you get.

You're probably just mad because the free condoms aren't benefitting you...



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by mtsalmela80

His failures are his in-actions, not his actions. He has repeatedly said you can expect energy prices to go up under his regime.

Under his administration, gasoline as gone up, electricity as gone up, coal is on its way out the window.....but I guess we do have free condoms!

I'll tell you what barrack, if you want to start paying for the recreational activities of your citizenry, how about throwing me some money for my greens fees.



Id have to agree that you cant really call it his in-actions when the Republicans try to block everything he does, even when they are things that they have supported in the past, only to come out with basically the same bill on their own a week or 2 later.  I mean, the Republican leadership has gone so far as to say that their ONLY goal is to make sure that Obama doesnt get reelected.  That just goes to show you what they really care about.

Thats the problem with our government right now though.  Theres to much partisan bickering and people who only want to support ideas that their party comes up with.  They all need to stop with the partisan bickering and get down to business of whats best for this country.

The only in-action that Obama is guility of is not ramming through every bill that he wanted when the Democrats had the power to do what they wanted.  You can bet that if the Republicans had that kind of power, they would have done whatever they wanted and wouldnt have tried to play nice and work with the Democrats.

Whats in my :sunmountain: C-130 cart bag?

Woods: :mizuno: JPX 850 9.5*, :mizuno: JPX 850 15*, :mizuno: JPX-850 19*, :mizuno: JPX Fli-Hi #4, :mizuno: JPX 800 Pro 5-PW, :mizuno: MP T-4 50-06, 54-09 58-10, :cleveland: Smart Square Blade and :bridgestone: B330-S

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: This thread is 4218 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...