Oil down, dollar up since Bush rescinded drilling restrictions
posted at 10:00 am on July 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Don’t look now, but investors and speculators have taken notice of the political metamorphosis among Americans on domestic drilling — even if American politicians have been slower to do so. Since George Bush rescinded the federal moratorium on off-shore drilling and since demand for higher domestic production has increased in the face of $5 per gallon gasoline, the price of crude has dropped over $20 a barrel in less than two weeks. The stock market has improved and the dollar has strengthened at the same time:
Overseas stock markets were higher and Wall Street index futures pointed to a solid open as the cost of oil retreated further and traders turned a bit more hopeful about the economy.
Light sweet crude oil for September delivery was down $2.17 at US$126.25 per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after dropping more than $3 in the previous session as Hurricane Dolly looked likely to avoid oil installations in the Gulf of Mexico.
Crude now is down by more than $20 a barrel from its July 11 peak above $147 - a surge that had raised worries that inflation would cripple the economy.
It’s amazing what the promise of more supply can do for market psychology. And it goes beyond a few hundred thousand barrels of oil a day, what Bush tried to beg out of the Saudis earlier this year. According to this Bureau of Land Management release yesterday, the potential for oil shale recovery alone could far outstrip the known reserves in the Middle East:
The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management today published proposed regulations to establish a commercial oil shale program that could result in the addition of up to 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from lands in the western United States. …
In remarks last month calling on Congress to expand domestic energy production, President Bush noted the “extraordinary potential” of oil shale resources on public lands in the West. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. holds more than half of the world’s oil shale resources.
The largest known deposits of oil shale are located in a 16,000-square mile area in the Green River formation in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Shale formations in that area hold the equivalent of up to 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Federal lands comprise 72 percent of the total surface of oil shale acreage in the Green River formation.
Currently, the US uses 20 million barrels of oil a day, 12 million of which we import. We also import refined gasoline, thanks to a lack of refining capacity in the US. The reserves in the Green River formation would supply us with 182 years of what we import now, or 109 years at our total rate of consumption. Once in motion, Green River alone could give us complete energy independence far beyond the time we need to find alternatives to fossil fuels.
That would be environmentally less risky than off-shore drilling, although as Jazz Shaw wrote on Monday, the risks there don’t come from drilling as much as it does from storage:
They go on to list some fairly remarkable numbers. There were a total of 125 reported incidents of oil spillage from rigs, platforms and pipelines. “Those spills did not occur due to loss of control of the producing wells.” The MMS defines a “major spill” as one where 2,381 or more barrels of oil are lost. None of the incidents qualifed as a “major spill” and in fact, a grand total of only 16,302 barrels were lost from those 125 spills. On top of that, the oil that was lost didn’t come from equipment failures in the rigs. As per the report, “Oil losses were mostly limited to the oil stored on platforms that were damaged or oil contained in individual segments of pipelines that were damaged.”
According to a report on “Oil in the Sea” from the National Academy of Sciences (1995), far more oil enters the ocean from natural, underwater seeps than from offshore production platforms. In fact, the seeps introduce about 1700 barrels of oil a day into U.S. marine waters, which is about 150 times the amount from oil and gas activities.
No matter what energy source man uses, risks accompany it. We should work to minimize those risks, but we shouldn’t allow ourselves to get paralyzed by the necessity of doing so. As the data Jazz references demonstrates, the risks of OCS drilling have been tremendously reduced over the last several decades, and the technology for extracting the oil has improved at the same time. We can get more, and get it cleaner, than ever before.
Balance that with the risks of transferring vast sums of wealth to nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela by having de facto price supports with our refusal to add supply to the market. The risks to our national security and our economy far outweigh the risks of unleashing our domestic production. Undercutting oil prices should be our national policy, if only to keep cash out of the hands of dangerous despots with ties to terrorists such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and FARC.
Everyone would love to see a new, clean energy source replace oil — but it has to be reliable and mass-produceable. We can work in parallel to find and develop that source, but until then, we need to start acting like responsible adults and take charge of our own energy needs with our own vast resources.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Just a coincidence. Bush had nothing to do with this. Just ask Nancy, Harry, or any democrat
Rod on July 23, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Actually, BO gets the credit. He is the President, isn’t he?
jgapinoy on July 23, 2008 at 10:09 AM
I’ve been reading that the energy to recover shale oil now requires 40-80%? Can anyone confirm/deny that? My non-petroleum, bipartisan engineer friend remains skeptical of shale.
E9RET on July 23, 2008 at 10:10 AM
And here’s McCain’s debate answer to the question of oil drilling.
The oil reserves in Green River will last us about 100 years. Even Sen Obama’s ambitious energy proposal says this alternative fuel may yield results in 10 years (emphasis on may). Industry says this will happen in about 20 years. In the mean time, we should ensure that prices are low so they don’t damage our economy and keep money in the US and not send it overseas, so we should start using our reserves now.
No thanks needed from McCain. Just stop being a dumbass and get with the program.
lorien1973 on July 23, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Yes, what’s more dangerous, another Valdez or another 9/11?
I’ll take 100 Valdez’s over another 9/11 and there won’t be another Valdez.
I’d rather cute little sea critters get killed than Americans, call me crazy.
NoDonkey on July 23, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Yes, that is all it takes. Action, any action will have an effect upon the price of oil. Just look how it spiked out of fears from Hurricane Dolly and tensions with Iran.
If we were aggressive and began to move towards domestic energy of any scale, that would also have a positive impact.
carbon_footprint on July 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM
To process shale oil into usable crude, I believe it costs about $40/gallon or so.
lorien1973 on July 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Crazy animal hater!
carbon_footprint on July 23, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Meanwhile, Congress continues sitting on their collective thumbs,
TooTall on July 23, 2008 at 10:13 AM
BO: I am against drilling on the OCS, and even when the drilling lowers the price of oil under $100, I will still be against drilling. It is and was all a hypothetical, and I don’t do hypotheticals.
ParisParamus on July 23, 2008 at 10:13 AM
I wrote an email to Senator Maria Cantwell of the state of Washington this morning. Seems she was on Bloomberg TV a day or so ago blathering on how the Democrats are not going to allow any oil drilling because it is their intent to wean Americans off of oil and on to other energy sources.
So I sent the good senator an email asking her very nicely to tell me exactly what other sources of energy are now available for commercial use by Americans, other than a horse and buggy or a bicycle, that I can start using right now so as to be weaned off oil use.
I am still waiting for the good senator’s cheery reply.
Perhaps you would like to ask her the same question as well. Why not drop her a line or 2 or 2000 at http://cantwell.senate.gov/.
pilamaye on July 23, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Not sure why this didn’t happen on Sept 12th, 2001…but hey any time is a good time to figure out how to run a superpower.
econavenger on July 23, 2008 at 10:14 AM
I will say it again (as in the last several months), if congress did nothing more then state they will open the U.S. to more drilling, more exploration, more refining. Put in process a fast trac method for that.
That alone would force the price down by 1/2. We wouldn’t even have to do these things.
If oil gets near $50 per barrel, it is not worth the investment to do all these things. The oil producers know this, so they will keep the price down just to keep us from drilling and forcing the price even lower.
BTW, the congress and politicians now know they made a big mistake. All of the gas tax should have been a percentage, not a flat rate. Look for that to change.
right2bright on July 23, 2008 at 10:15 AM
I wish I had more information to offer here, but please study the environmental effects of mining for oil shale and the process by which the collected shale is refined.
The byproducts from oil shale are huge. The byproducts from the refining process are also huge. That stuff has to go somewhere.
If you’re looking for expectations, the LA Clippers will probably win the NBA Title before oil shale is taken out of the ground in the United States and refined into petroleum products on a massive scale.
Furthermore, an Obama presidency is very likely to use the executive order pen to siphon off massive tracts of US land as a price control to support his foreign policy objectives. McCain will do this too, but not to the extent of Obama.
gabriel sutherland on July 23, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Wait, I thought it would be 10 years before there would be any affect? That’s what the Dems keep telling me…
TheBigOldDog on July 23, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Why didn’t President Bush start leading on this issue when oil first hit $50 a barrel in 2004, if not before? We’ve lost four crucial years.
flyfisher on July 23, 2008 at 10:16 AM
I didn’t even mention the fact that Americans have cut our oil use by 900,000 barrels per day. I could be off a bit, but it is in that ballpark.
carbon_footprint on July 23, 2008 at 10:17 AM
What did people expect. Increase supply, decrease the price. Odd most Democrat Marxists don’t understand basic free market economics.
Notice that BP who starts drilling next month in the Beaufort sea says they will be producing in under 2 years. Also note they are going to drill at five miles out, out of the 80% tax zone of Alaska.
Do Democrats think all people are stupid, or just their voters?
tarpon on July 23, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Democrats would rather see Americans remain victims to high priced oil. That way DemocRATs are seen as the providers of solutions to the victims which is what DemocRATs specialize in! If the American people are no longer victims to Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Banking, Big Corporations, Big Polluters, Big War Profiteers etc. then our need for nannies to save us from those making us “victims” disappears and we no longer have a need for DemocRATs and their silly policies…
sabbott on July 23, 2008 at 10:18 AM
They keep telling us that because their political viability depends upon pessimism and hardship.
carbon_footprint on July 23, 2008 at 10:18 AM
This was predictable, of course, although the Dhimmicrats denied it. They won’t stand for any improvement in the dollar, however, until they get Obama into the WH. God forbid the American people feel better about the economy before November.
Connie on July 23, 2008 at 10:18 AM
That should be replace imported oil. And that new clean source should be American oil and gas– throw in some nuclear if you’re feeling a little wild.
I love oil. It heats and cools my house, and powers my car, and does tons of other cool things. And my air and water is cleaner now than it was when I was a kid.
Furthermore, the burning of fossil fuels may help warm the global cooling phase we’re entering.
JiangxiDad on July 23, 2008 at 10:18 AM
What? That would be disastrous. Most taxes on gasoline go to pay for road projects. If the taxes were a percentage of the price at the pump the government would collect huge surplus revenues.
gabriel sutherland on July 23, 2008 at 10:19 AM
I’m sure Harry Reid will find a way to take credit for this much like he did for the auctioning of the “Rush Letter” a while back.
carbon_footprint on July 23, 2008 at 10:19 AM
The environmental offshore drilling disaster myth…
The Gulf of Mexico rigs with the path of hurricanes Rita and Katrina….
Now…someone supply the map of the dead and dying beaches along the Gulf Coast……..
waiting……
Limerick on July 23, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Our children will look back on this as the moment when the oil industry began to heal, and we became united - with hope - in our effort to change the world.
Jaibones on July 23, 2008 at 10:22 AM
The byproducts of shale mining are mostly ground up rocks.
The stuff can go back into the hole it was mined from.
The “byproducts” of refining are mostly heavy tars, which can and are used to make things like asphault.
MarkTheGreat on July 23, 2008 at 10:22 AM
PUBLIC ENERGY NUMBER ONE!
Rovin on July 23, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Why interrupt your opponent while they are making a mistake?
Don’t warn Cantwell away from digging her own grave. Turn on the wind turbines and allow them to gently blow her into it.
Holding the American Economy hostage to ween Americans off oil is a recipe for the total decimation of the US economy. Remind me when this strategy was effective in re-electing incumbents.
gabriel sutherland on July 23, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Adam Smith is smiling.
WisCon on July 23, 2008 at 10:23 AM
I am pleased. Now if we could just get Congress off their collective asses. The libs are saying “Bush just trying to make himself look good” “Just trying to help republicans”
I can’t imagine living my life in such a cynical manner. I asked him, “can you not even conceive the thought that Bush would be doing it to help his countrymen?
Then of course, I promptly kicked his ass. he he he j/k
deedtrader on July 23, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Why is that odd? Most Democrats range from socialist to communist in their economic thinking.
MarkTheGreat on July 23, 2008 at 10:23 AM
TexasJew, a HA poster who is a petroleum geologist, commented on another thread that the extraction process with shale is much more destructive to the enviorment and very water intensive in an area that doesn’t have large reservoirs of water. He seemed to favor drilling in ANWR and OCS as short term solutions. I assume most of the enviormental difficulties with shale could be overcome with technology, but the water issue remains.
a capella on July 23, 2008 at 10:24 AM
And the source of water? Mine anywhere and you need a source of water to carry away sediment.
And the ammonia? What happens to that?
Prepare for these arguments now because they are about to start coming from the ecologylobby.
gabriel sutherland on July 23, 2008 at 10:26 AM
I think you’re right.
a capella on July 23, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Tip O’ the Iceberg. If that $700 billion that T. Boone keeps talking about on his tv ad begins to fold back into our own economy in the form of “high paying” oil field related jobs, then the sky is the limit.
The trade-deficit will plummet for the first time in many decades.
If we couple that to the well deserved prosperity that the U.S. farmer is finally experiencing as a result of high grain prices (due to ethanol-which is a great way to manipulate global grain prices in our favor, grain being one of our few exports anymore) then the U.S. economy “could” be on the verge of an incredible upturn.
But don’t expect President Bush to get any credit. Pres. Obama will, of course, take full responsibility for it if it happens. DD
Darvin Dowdy on July 23, 2008 at 10:29 AM
haven’t demand reports fallen recently too though?
jp on July 23, 2008 at 10:29 AM
The other day I was listening to some radio host (perhaps Phil Valentine out of Nashville) who favored domestic drilling, but he was calling for all oil drilled on land owned by the U.S. government to be sold on the American market instead of the international market under the theory that it really belongs to the American people, not the oil companies. Our concern should be the price at U.S. pumps, not sufficent supplies in China and India.
How does that idea strike you?
flyfisher on July 23, 2008 at 10:29 AM
San Fran Nancy Pelosi will not even allow any legislation to come to the House floor that includes domestic oil exploration or development. Until this women is removed there is little hope for this nation to advance ourselves to become energy independent.
Rovin on July 23, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Duh, clean your freaking floors with it!
carbon_footprint on July 23, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Remember ‘Cause and Effect’, where is the connection, Ed?
/heavily sarc
Sir Napsalot on July 23, 2008 at 10:36 AM
I saw Chuckie Schumer still saying “We can not drill ourselves out of this oil crisis” with a desperation.
/chuckles
You want to be in charge? Now you have it, what have you done lately?
Sir Napsalot on July 23, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Water can be piped in.
Ammonia can be collected and sold. It’s a feedstock for many other industrial processes.
MarkTheGreat on July 23, 2008 at 10:42 AM
You forgot he opposes it because Bush was for it.
Sir Napsalot on July 23, 2008 at 10:42 AM
It strikes me as both stupid and shortsighted.
It doesn’t matter where the oil is sold, it will have the same affect. Selling a barrel produced in the US will result in the US importing one extra barrel to replace it. Since both of the barrels are priced the same, the economic affect is a complete wash. If it costs less to ship a barrel of Alaska crude to Japan, and replace it with a barrel bought from Mexico.
MarkTheGreat on July 23, 2008 at 10:46 AM
i am soo sick of all the Dems saying it will take 7 to 10 years for oil prices to go down. NOw this proves they are wrong.
Do you think any of them will admit that? Heck no! Obama cant admit he was wrong about the surge so neither will Congress.
becki51758 on July 23, 2008 at 10:47 AM
The libtards will say it’s because they passed a bill on speculators…Yea right…
twiggman on July 23, 2008 at 10:48 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia
pedestrian on July 23, 2008 at 10:49 AM
I think you are right, but I many people seem to think along the lines of that radio host. I’ve heard Robert Kennedy, Jr. prattle on about how oil from Alaska is being shipped to Japan. He was using that as an additional reason not to open ANWAR, yet no one challenged his reasoning.
flyfisher on July 23, 2008 at 10:51 AM
O-SD moratorium rescinded. Results: crude oil price down, dollar strengthened, market stabilizing.
Congress: “No correlation! No linkage! Dammit! Dammit! Dammit!”
whitetop on July 23, 2008 at 10:52 AM
From where? The west coast? The Great Plains aquifers are already sressed from ethanol production, and they were decreasing before that even started.
a capella on July 23, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Why don’t we let the market take care of the technology, gabriel? If oil shale mining is going to ruin Colorado I’m sure their enviro activists will put up a fight in court and not even Exxon can afford losing these lawsuits.
The technology has advanced–as one poster says, not a single leak occurred in the Gulf during Katrina. The herds in Alaska have increased around the Alaskan pipeline. The Valdez spill was caused by the transport, not the drilling of oil.
Let’s balance the equities here: economic ruin due to indebtedness to radical Islam, or drilling at home, with the chance of some environmental impact in the future or an impaired ocean view.
PattyJ on July 23, 2008 at 11:09 AM
So many great comments here, HotAir ROCKS!
Tony737 on July 23, 2008 at 11:13 AM
It’s been my experience that if a buck can be made someone will find a way. I say we loose the dogs of commerce and cry “Oil for sale!”.
Oldnuke on July 23, 2008 at 11:17 AM
That’s all well and good, but shale has long term impact on other areas. Drain off the Corn Belt water resources to produce oil from shale, and corn production goes way down. You know the donks aren’t going to do away with the ethanol pork potential which puts even more pressure on water resources. It’s more a question of balancing our resources. Lose food grain production and the ripple effect is immense. I’m not saying shale is undoable, but some prudent trade offs should be considered.
a capella on July 23, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Yeah, I wish Texasjew would chime in though. His comments on oil threads are always a great read. Of course he’s probably out wasting his time finding places to drill for oil. Nancy and her cronies have already told us that we can’t drill our way out of this mess.
Oldnuke on July 23, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Meanwhile, the media claims that the price is dropping because hurricane Dolly missed oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. You’d think that if that was the case, the prices would have risen right as Dolly formed, but did they?
No. Meanwhile, gas supplies went up by 2.9 million barrels, up from the 0.3 million that was expected. That have anything to do with it? Well no, because the media says it’s all about Dolly. Must be true.
Seixon on July 23, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Fresh water from the Mississippi River is going to need to flow through the plains to the West coast eventually.
The Pickens Plan is a good one because it will seek to increase capital formation in this region for the benefit of producing energy from wind. This capital formation can be expanded to focus on distributing fresh water from the same region to the west.
The United States is much better off when we keep energy production within our borders. If its better if that energy is consumed somewhere else then fine, but I’m pretty sure we’re decades away from decreasing our energy consumption.
gabriel sutherland on July 23, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. We don’t transfer too much electrical energy overseas. Do you mean pump water from the Mississippi to Colorado and points West?
Oldnuke on July 23, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Hey can we use salt water for this? We can pump water from the ocean and that will also lower the ocean depth so that the polar bears will no longer be underwater. Polar bears get more land to live on and we get water for our oil shale fields. Humans and polar bears working together to save each other. (Well the humans will do all the actual work to save the planet, but the polar bears can be in the photo ops. That’s hard work too, just ask Hollywood.)
Lily on July 23, 2008 at 11:31 AM
I’d love to. We can’t. The lawyers are five steps ahead of the market.
After the DoD and DoS, the EPA is the most powerful agency in the executive branch in the Federal Government. The people’s representatives, the Congress, has made it this way. The trend to elect candidates to Congress that will challenge the EPA and slowly dismantle its authority is in a rapid fall.
I want to hope the market can win, but when 22 year old college grads talk to me in interviews about their fears of water rising to take away 40 miles of seaboard in the continental United States, I start to get worried that the generation after mine is completely brainwashed. When 3 of 8 candidates say the same thing I start writing letters to the Provosts of their colleges.
gabriel sutherland on July 23, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Behold, the price of begging, $4.50 a gallon (California)
Behold, the glory of growing a pair.
Speakup on July 23, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Yes.
gabriel sutherland on July 23, 2008 at 11:34 AM
All the Democrats want to talk about is the “risk” of an oil spill, but there is no risk. When has there ever been massive death and destruction due to an oil spill? Its never happened. But giving our money to terror supporting states will cause massive death and destruction and it has already happened.
Maxx on July 23, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Yep. That’s what I’m talking about. The water issue is a big one requiring major capital investment and long term planning. In spite of the fact the ecologists will fight any Mississippi water diversion every inch of the way, it would be a tremendous move in the right direction, for more reasons than the shale issue.
a capella on July 23, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Very well said, Ed.
locomotivebreath1901 on July 23, 2008 at 11:44 AM
It’s a long way from the Mississippi to the West coast. Take a lot of pumps and a lot of megawatts to get it there. It could be done, it’s just pumps, valves and pipes but it would cost a lot.
Oldnuke on July 23, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Sorry Maxx I meant that for gabriel sutherland not you. I grabbed your line by mistake.
Oldnuke on July 23, 2008 at 11:45 AM
right2bright, I’ve been saying the same thing. Put simply, If all the traitorcrats in congress announced they now support drilling every possible US location, the price of oil would drop to $30 a barrel overnight.
And every one of us knows that is so. If they had agreed to drill ten years ago, we would not be paying $5 a gallon for gas and everyone knows that too.
dogsoldier on July 23, 2008 at 11:47 AM
What this election season needs is a scene from ‘The American President’.
Barry O.:
My name is Barack Obama and I’m the president… I mean, I’m running for president!
Bush 43:
My name is George Bush and I /am/ the president.
Mission accomplished!
Vatican Watcher on July 23, 2008 at 11:51 AM
not only would it cost a lot, but there would be a huge outcry from the people in the midwest. we rely on that river for our drinking water, and to transport our goods.
don’t bet on that happening anytime soon.
right4life on July 23, 2008 at 11:52 AM
In response to “a capella”:
About the most reliable reference I could find on this is a 2005 report by Rand Corporation “Oil Shale Development in the United States”
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf
Rand describes an “in situ” process developed by Shell Oil Company, where oil-bearing shale is heated underground using electric heaters, while surrounding water is “frozen” using refrigeration, in order to create an ice barrier to prevent escape of the oil.
Rand estimates the energy input requirement as 1.2 gigawatts of electricity to produce 100,000 barrels of oil per day. If the heating value of crude oil is estimated to be 150,000 Btu/gal, and assuming electricity generation to be 70% efficient, and working through all the conversion factors, the energy input requirement is about 22% of the heating value of the oil obtained. In other words, for every unit of energy input, about 4.5 units of energy is obtained. This is a MUCH better energy return than ethanol, and definitely worthwhile on a large scale.
Rand estimated the power costs at $15/barrel (at $0.05/kwh) and total production costs at $30/barrel in 2005. Since 2005, power costs have doubled to about $0.10/kwh, so that adding a doubled power cost of $30/barrel to the remaining costs at $15/barrel results in a 2008 cost of $45/barrel. With crude oil on the open market at $130/barrel, a company could make money over the long term developing shale oil.
There could be a ripple-effect when shale-oil production comes online, since oil shale also produces natural gas. If the natural gas supply is increased, its price will decrease, which could decrease power costs if the electricity is generated using natural gas.
The major problem with shale oil is the long time needed to develop it, estimated by Rand to be 8-16 years before commercial production comes online–offshore drilling would have a much shorter lead time. However, the amount of shale oil available (500 billion to 1.1 trillion barrels) means that shale oil could provide our oil needs for over a century, once it is developed. Shale oil is NOT a quick fix, but it could be a good long-term solution, for which Michelle Obama’s children and grandchildren might be grateful one day.
Steve Z on July 23, 2008 at 11:53 AM
why? so you can keep importing more and more illegal aliens? find your own water, desalinate the ocean, but think again before you steal the midwesterner’s water.
right4life on July 23, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Eff it. Melt down the polar ice caps. And nuke the whales. (I keed, I keed!!)
hillbillyjim on July 23, 2008 at 11:57 AM
It’s just a question of costs compared to how we are presently spending on energy and where the money goes. There would be many side benefits to the economy. I think the overall cost/benefit ratio would be very favorable. It would be a political battle, though, even if done by privatization. The EPA et al are formidable.
a capella on July 23, 2008 at 11:57 AM
its not just the EPA…its people in the midwest. we rely on that water to drink, and raise crops with, and to transport our goods…you going to start eating oil??
right4life on July 23, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Heh! I’m under no illusions about the feasibility of changing the course of the Mississippi by mechanical means.
Oldnuke on July 23, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Old the last time I saw TJ he mentioned he was going out into the field here on HA. Geological field work is a PITA! And with all he is doing, especially in N.D. and other places, that man is constantly on the go.
upinak on July 23, 2008 at 12:02 PM
You are already eating “oil”. Fertilizer is a byproduct.
upinak on July 23, 2008 at 12:04 PM
I think shale is a good long term solution, but requires a massive amount of prep work. The good news is the prep work would benefit the economy. In the meantime, we drill, build refineries, nuclear plants, and try to develop biofuels which don’t affect food prices. Energy has become such a political football, I despair that any true long range planning ever gets done.
a capella on July 23, 2008 at 12:05 PM
I have seen estimated at $30.00-$40.00/barrel of oil extracted. Sorry no link offhand.
hillbillyjim on July 23, 2008 at 12:08 PM
yeah I know, but we can use cow manure for fertilizer, if we have to, its kinda hard to grow things without water.
right4life on July 23, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I don’t think they’ll try that, the river has a way of going where it wants, and all the dikes and floodwalls don’t seem to stop it for long. As we’ve just seen with the floods…when the big river floods best thing to do is get out of the way
I’m more worried about them pumping the water from the missouri or mississippi to be used by the people in CA to accomodate their growing illegal population, or for any other methods. they can get their own water, instead of taking ours. we rely on those rivers quite a bit. let the people out west get their water from the ocean or somewhere else, don’t try to steal ours.
right4life on July 23, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Salaminella comes to mind.
But I am not seeing your point. What are you concerned about when it comes to water? Surface? Subsurface? Aquifers? Help me out and I will help you out with an answer.
upinak on July 23, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Ok now I see what you are talking about. California is insane (no disrespect to those conservatives there). I remember as a teenager here in Alaska how the California Government tried to MANDATE the Alaska Government to give them our water, and that they were going to build a “fresh water pipeline” to California from Alaska.
I think the Alaskans about wet themselves laughing at this thought. R4L I doubt it will pass. They don’t have a leg to stand on.
upinak on July 23, 2008 at 12:16 PM
I grew up on a central Iowa farm, lived in the Cedar Rapids area for 17 years( hours from the M) and presently live in Nebraska. Diverting some Mississippi water isn’t going to hurt anything. Last I looked, you had more than you could handle.
a capella on July 23, 2008 at 12:17 PM
its not a good idea to take water from the mississippi/missour river system to give to the people out west, for oil production, or drinking water, or anything else. we rely on that water to drink, to transport our goods, for recreation, for food production.
There would not only be environmental, but economic concerns if that were proposed. and it would be a huge fight to try to get that water. we need it, get the water from somewhere else.
this should give you an idea…link
right4life on July 23, 2008 at 12:18 PM
says you. get ready for a huge fight, because we’re not going to let that happen easily.
right4life on July 23, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Where? Nice?
JiangxiDad on July 23, 2008 at 12:20 PM
I doubt it will happen. As I said in the last thread.. Californian are loopy!
upinak on July 23, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Drill more, build nuclear power plants and gasoline refineries, settle on one gasoline formula and cut or totally do away with corporate taxes by implementing the fair tax and this country will run away from the rest of the world.
peacenprosperity on July 23, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Dude, $40/BARRELL for shale oil…and it’s not mined. Shale oil wells are usually frac’d (fractured at the oil zone interface) and steam or other high gel fluids are used to force the oil from the shale to a collection well. Either well can be horizontally drilled as well to further access the shale zones.
Tar sands are mined. The tar sands operations in Canada have proven and probably reserves that rival Saudi Arabia as well…which is why China and India are buying up vast areas of Canadian tundra. “Washed” sands are redeposited and the disturbed ground is reclaimed/revegitated as mining advances.
Of course, there’s much more to each process than I’ve summarized, but you get the drift…I hope.
Wyznowski on July 23, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Divert the Mississippi? Can’t be done. Well, it probably could…. but why? The biggest river in the Southwest is the Colorado, provides water for millions of people. The Colorado is maybe 100 feet wide, 50 feet deep. The Mississippi or missouri rivers dwarf anything in the west.
You couldn’t move the Mississippi to where it would need to be anyway. The Green river formation starts in Wyoming–and at that latituted, trying to move any river there would be incredibly hard.
California can go hang themselves, personally. I’d love to get a small chunk of the Mississippi or Missouri into Utah–we know how to manage water shortages here. Reservoirs! It’s the only way to go…. but in any case, taking a pipeline of water out of the Mississippi river system wouldn’t even be noticed, even if it was the same amount as the Colorado.
You guys panicking over “They’ll take all our water” just don’t realize how much water is in the Mississippi–if we DID take it all, the entire west would probably die from too much water. Don’t worry–there’s plenty of water there to be had.
Vanceone on July 23, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Further, shale oil is being extracted as we speak in eastern Montana and North Dakota and coming on fast. It won’t take 10 years to get this oil to market like Harry Reid tells us. There’s another oil boom going on right now in the northern plains and it’s mostly shale oil sources. We have the technology…
Wyznowski on July 23, 2008 at 12:34 PM
No water for oil!
pedestrian on July 23, 2008 at 12:35 PM
If RFK JR is prattling on about Alaskan oil being shipped to Japan, he is either ignorant or lying. I checked this on Snopes. This has been a rumor that has been circulating for some time. According to that article, there has never been more than 7% shipped to Asia. In 2000 President Clinton reinstated the Alaskan oil export ban. This is not to say it does not make economical sense to do so, but it is still inaccurate to claim it is happening now.
duggersd on July 23, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Interesting.
Baby RFK has indeed prattled on about oil shipments to Japan. He did it with his trademark self-righteousness. In that same conversation he smugly lied about why his family opposes the the Cape Wind project near Hyannisport.
flyfisher on July 23, 2008 at 12:48 PM
No there’s more to it than that. Think this trough in solid terms. First how many gallons per minute will you have to pump from Cairo Illinois to LA? That’s a little under 2000 miles. How much water is required?Will it be pumped raw or will it require treatment? What treatment.
Oldnuke on July 23, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Diverting water from the Midwest to Western U.S. …
Never. Going. To. Happen.
People have dreamed about diverting Columbia river water to California for 100 years, and northwesters have always been willing to take up arms, if needed, to prevent it.
Water is life, and reallocating it is a recipe for civil war.
I kid you not.
ChrisM on July 23, 2008 at 12:54 PM
All the cow patties on earth are not a drop in the bucket to the fertilizer requirements of the US alone. Looks good on paper but doesn’t work in reality.. Sort of like wind and solar power.
Oldnuke on July 23, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »