WRT ANWAR, the payback could be very fast. It is land based drilling and significant infra structure is in place near by. Seismic can be done quickly and easily, and land rigs can moved into the area for pad drilling pretty sharpish. Sizing for production facilities is also much less of a problem on a land location with a fairly well known production zone so lead time there is reduced.
For the deep water offshore stuff, totally different kettle of fish. All deep water drilling rigs are tied up in long term contracts, esentially you would be looking at new build (ie years). The off shore seismic fleet, particulary hi res 3D seismc vessels which may be needed to to sub surface salt imaging, are also booked up. Then you need to actually drill some wells and do production testing to get a better idea of the production facilities that you will need in terms of capacity and fluid types. Then you have to build and install the production platform.
In short ANWAR quick, Deep water, not so much.
From an envrionmental point of view ANWAR is probably preferable, the risks can be more eaisly controlled, total containment is easier, and you don´t have hurricanes taking out platforms. You do have a risk of BP dropping the ball and letting pipelines get corroded though.
Then the thing to do would be to drill now, and then cap the wells for future use. By the time you’re in your emergency situation, you’ll not have time to bring the wells on-line. We’re talking years here, not months, to bring this capacity up. But who’s going to fork over the money to do that? Waiting for just the right time is a losing proposition. There is no right time.
You are not understanding what you are reading. There is a big difference between exporrting crude oil and exporting gasoline and diesel. My questions was about exporting crude. Why would we export crude?
What company would spend potentially billions developing a reservoir only to be limited to who it could sell it to and at what price? It is unlikely that they would when they could spend that money in other places without such restrictions.
Frankly, I don’t know why the US is so concerned about this. They already have more oil than the middle east has ever dreamed of locked up in their coal reserves and oil shale. Develop those and you can tell the Saudis to go stuff themselves.
Indeed. When I see a politician take on peasant superstition on that subject head-on, with no weaseling or equivocation, then I’ll believe that his agenda is American economic and geopolitical security. Not otherwise.
No need for exaggeration. No offshore reservoir is going to cost billions to develop. They cost a lot, but not that much.
How about the fact that oil shales aren’t the most economic of developments? Also, don’t disregard the natural gas reserves offshore. Further, coal isn’t exactly used as a transportation fuel, so I’m not sure why the coal reserves would be looked at as a substitute for oil.
You make oil out of coal. The Germans did it in WW2, and the South Africans do it now. It probably costs less per barrel than Shale Oil.
In both cases, the upfront costs probably exceed the costs of the oil sands in Alberta, but, like Alberta, you could produce at significant volumes for hundreds of years without running out.
Going to disagree here, the Thunder horse Deep water project topside facilities alone cost in excess of 1billion, add up the pre development drilling and all that good stuff, it is a 5 billion project . They plan on producing 250,000 bbls a day so don’t feel sorry for them.
Mars topside facilities were close to a 1/2 a billion and the total 1st phase costs will come in at just over 1 billion. Independence gas hub is 800 million , and Chevrons deep water Jack prospect, the exploration wells alone are advertised as coming in at 80-120 million a pop, development wells won’t be much cheaper,
The cost down in deep water Brazil and deepwater Nigeria/Angola are in a similar region.
I guess they are thinking of some sort of Coal To liquid process.
You are missing LonghornDave’s point. It matters not one whit which oil is used where. Because the US is going to be using more oil than it produces, oil companies might as well keep the domestic stuff here and pocket the transportation costs. Just because the domestically produced oil is not shipped abroad DOESN’T mean it isn’t sold on the world market. That is the defining characteristic of commodities:
Buyers bid on what the suppliers have to offer. When a deal is reached, the suppliers figure out the cheapest way to meet their delivery contracts. In most cases that will result in the oil being consumed as near the point of production as possible. Because suppliers can trade delivery contracts among themselves, all suppliers effectively have access to all sources and all markets.
In short, there is no possibility of creating a situation where US produced oil ONLY benefits US consumers. If we were to somehow supply ALL of our own demand with domestic production, then the rest of the world would benefit from the lack of competition for other sources, and the net effect would be the same as an open market.
You are correct. Certainly there are a couple huge projects right now. However, I think it would be fair to say the 99% of Gulf of Mexico development is far below $1 billion for a project.
That site is for crude oil and products. If you switch over from the destination sort to the product sort, you will see that almost all exports are of products and not crude. If I am reading it correctly, in April 2008, the U.S. had total exports of 52,612 thousand barrels with only 419 thousand barrels being crude oil: link
Shelf and land work work, yes way below the billion dollar mark. However the federal waters covered by the ban in question are tending to be in the deeper waters, these are the price ranges we would be looking at for a larger proportion of the developments.
cheers
NBC
What? Why does gas need to be cheaper? WHAT? Was this seriously a question? People are in trouble, cousin. In a big way. Everything is tied to the price of gas. EVERYTHING. Everything you touch, own, use, eat, whatever, was on a train, truck or other type of vehicle that burned some kind of refined hydrocarbon fuel. When it costs more to get to the store, it costs you more. This fact hits poor people hardest, and because of that, all taxpayers get hit harder.
Lookit. Bush announces the lifting of the ban, the price of a barrel of oil drops $10 in two days. That’s good for the consumer, that’s good for the oil companies and it’s good for the economy, which is also degrading. Rapidly. You’ve gotta fix that now. As far as the benefits being “a long way down the road” that theory’s pretty much shot in the ass. Just TALKING about drilling drops the price.
None of those things address equally the economic and environmental burdens. Plus, no one, not one damn person in any debate about this I’ve ever had has anything to say about India and China. They’re growing explosively and using oil like the shit was free. If we don’t keep an eye on that growth, we’ll be victims of it.
CNN/Money puts credit for the oil price drop to an unexpected surplus of natural gas and the prospect of US/Iranian diplomatic actions, not Bush’s call for OCS drilling: