U.S. proven oil reserves decline 4% in 2006

  1. Welcome to GM Inside News Forum – General discussion forum for GM

    Welcome to GM Inside News Forum - a website dedicated to all things GM.

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, Join GM Inside News Forum today!
     
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20

Thread: U.S. proven oil reserves decline 4% in 2006

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,653
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    U.S. proven oil reserves decline 4% in 2006

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/n...rent/adsum.pdf


    U.S. crude oil proved reserves declined 4 percent in 2006. The Gulf of Mexico Federal Off shore and Alaska, two of the largest oil - producing areas, respectively reported 10 and 7 per cent declines in crude oil proved reserves.
    ...
    Total discoveries of crude oil were 577 million barrels in 2006, 49 percent less than the prior 10-year average and 45 percent less than 2005's discoveries of 1,051 million barrels.

    ...
    Other 2006 crude oil events of note:

    • The annual average domestic first purchase price for crude oil increased 19 percent from $50.28 per barrel in 2005 to $59. 69 per barrel.
    • Oil well completions (exploratory and development) were up 28 percent from 2005.
    Record oil prices. Increased oil well completions. Yet production goes down. Why would it be in America's self-interest to invest in the production of ethanol and biodiesel?

  2. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    7.0 Liter LS7 V8 GMusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio. U.S.A!
    Posts
    4,391
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    My Ride
    2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee

    Re: U.S. proven oil reserves decline 4% in 2006

    I have seen more and more shows and reports on the news that explain that the U.S. has more oil off our shores then the entire middle east! Now the evniromenest have got to get their heads on straight so we can actually drill for the oil and actually make a ton of money for exporting it since the middle east is drying up quickly!!

  4. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    285
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: U.S. proven oil reserves decline 4% in 2006

    Quote Originally Posted by GMusa View Post
    I have seen more and more shows and reports on the news that explain that the U.S. has more oil off our shores then the entire middle east! Now the evniromenest have got to get their heads on straight so we can actually drill for the oil and actually make a ton of money for exporting it since the middle east is drying up quickly!!
    You are correct! The corn ethanol thing is a way to subsidize agriculture and political support is required to win the primary in Iowa.


    "America has about 22 billion barrels of "proven" oil reserves, defined as "reasonably certain to be recoverable in future years under existing economic and operating conditions." In addition, there are an estimated 112 billion barrels that could be recovered with existing drilling and production technology. Make that, with existing drilling and production technology and fewer Democrats like Pelosi who, while promising energy independence, are opposed to any drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and much drilling offshore, where 87 billion of the 112 billion barrels are located, as is much of the estimated 656 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas."

    http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will051707.php3

  5. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  6. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    641
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: U.S. proven oil reserves decline 4% in 2006

    How odd that republicans controlled all three branches of the government for nearly 6 years, yet those evil environmentalists and liberals were able to stop all oil exploration and production.

    Almost as odd as how government spending and debt soared to record levels at that same time. That was also the liberals I assume.

  7. #5

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,653
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: U.S. proven oil reserves decline 4% in 2006

    Quote Originally Posted by SJZ3 View Post
    How odd that republicans controlled all three branches of the government for nearly 6 years, yet those evil environmentalists and liberals were able to stop all oil exploration and production.

    Almost as odd as how government spending and debt soared to record levels at that same time. That was also the liberals I assume.
    40 senators can stop any bill.

  8. #6
    GMI Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    11,887
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,425 Times in 1,474 Posts

    Re: U.S. proven oil reserves decline 4% in 2006

    Quote Originally Posted by HoosierRon View Post
    40 senators can stop any bill.
    That may be true, but I have a question....

    Did 40 Senators stop any energy bill during those 6 years?



  9. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,653
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: U.S. proven oil reserves decline 4% in 2006

    Quote Originally Posted by MonaroSS View Post
    That may be true, but I have a question....

    Did 40 Senators stop any energy bill during those 6 years?


    Yes.
    Republicans argue the refuge's potential 16 billion barrels of oil is needed to help reduce U.S. oil imports, but Daschle and other Democrats want to keep the wilderness area closed and instead promote renewable energy sources and energy conservation measures.

    "I don't believe that the 60 votes that will be required to pass an ANWR amendment are there," Daschle told reporters on Capitol Hill. "That will be the subject of a filibuster."

    While Republicans say a majority of the Senate's 100 members favor drilling in the Alaskan refuge, under the chamber's rules 60 votes are needed to adopt such an amendment and stop a threatened filibuster from Democrats opposed to opening the protected area.

    Drilling in ANWR is key to the Bush administration's plan to boost domestic energy supplies and cut dependence on foreign oil imports, which now provide 60 percent of the oil consumed daily in the U.S. market.

    To win over enough senators, the White House is considering a plan to scale back the original 1.5 million acres of the refuge that it wanted opened to energy exploration to just 500,000 acres.

    Daschle said there would be no compromise on drilling in ANWR, whether it be a smaller area, or be allowed in exchange for the Democrats' desire to raising the fuel mileage requirements for cars and gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles.
    http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsst...4791/story.htm


    In August 2001, the House of Representatives approved oil recovery in a small portion of ANWR. On October 10, Daschle took the unusual step of canceling deliberations in the Democrat-controlled Senate Energy Committee and seizing control of the Senate version of the bill. Faced with likely passage in both the Energy Committee and the full Senate, Daschle chose instead to keep the bill from reaching a Committee or full floor vote.

    In the Senate Energy Committee, Democrats Daniel Akaka of Hawaii and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana were poised to vote for ANWR drilling. Other Democratic senators who are not members of the Committee were considering joining Akaka and Landrieu if the bill reached the full Senate.

    "Several members of the other side don't want a vote on ANWR because they know they would lose," said Senator Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska). "They didn't have the votes in committee and we did."

    Now, pressure has mounted from a bipartisan group of Teamsters, Republican congressmen, and moderate Democrats for Daschle to allow a vote on ANWR, a key element in President George W. Bush's energy plan. Moderate Democrats, in particular, feel they are losing political capital being associated with Daschle's unusual tactics.

    "Senator Daschle has subverted the will of the Energy Committee, the will of the Senate, and the will of the American people--all in order to deny the President a political win," said Murkowski.

    "At this point, they have decided to put this process behind closed doors and pull the plug on an issue that the President has said is important to our energy security in a time of war," added a top Republican official at the Energy Committee.
    http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=615

  10. #8
    7.0 Liter LS7 V8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Logged off
    Posts
    4,723
    Thanks
    1,348
    Thanked 1,143 Times in 635 Posts

    Re: U.S. proven oil reserves decline 4% in 2006

    ANWR is not a game changer for domestic oil production. If it went into production, ANWR peak production rates are projected at from 1.0 to 1.35 million barrels per day.

    (see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...ecsummary.html)

    The United States consumed an average of about 20.6 million bbl/d of oil during the first nine months of 2005, the same amount year-over-year as in 2004. (See --
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Usa/Oil.html). So, ANWR could supply about five percent of that. And, that small amount won't even offset the decline of production of existing US oil wells.

    It's a non-issue that won't even begin to solve the problem.

    Successful (very) deep offshore drilling might, but its right on the technical cutting edge. The Wired article I linked to in another thread (see http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/mag...-09/mf_jackrig) talked about drilling nearly 5 miles beneath the surface to tap into potentially significant reserves. The single field being explored is potentially bigger than the collection of much smaller fields in ANWR.

    Ultimately, sooner (better) or later (worse) we need to find a viable energy alternative that is sustainable and cost-effective.
    Last edited by Tone; 11-28-2007 at 11:59 AM.

  11. #9
    GMI Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    11,887
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,425 Times in 1,474 Posts

    Re: U.S. proven oil reserves decline 4% in 2006

    I'm sorry but SJZ3 said that the Republicans held control of the House the Senate and the Executive for nearly 6 years.

    That was the 6 years I referred to. What you quote is before that time as Daschle was still Majority Leader according to the article you linked to.

    So I'll ask my question again. Did 40 Senators stop any energy bill during the 6 years that the Republicans controlled the House and Senate?


    Last edited by MonaroSS; 11-28-2007 at 12:04 PM.

  12. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,653
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: U.S. proven oil reserves decline 4% in 2006

    Quote Originally Posted by MonaroSS View Post
    I'm sorry but SJZ3 said that the Republicans held control of the House the Senate and the Executive for nearly 6 years.

    That was the 6 years I referred to. What you quote is before that time as Daschle was still Majority Leader according to the article you linked to.

    So I'll ask my question again. Did 40 Senators stop any energy bill during the 6 years that the Republicans controlled the House and Senate?


    The Republicans did not control the Senate for 6 years. The Democrats controlled it from 2000 to 2002 because Jim Jeffords switched parties.

    In 2005, the Senate was controlled by Republicans. Here is what happened when the Republicans (again) tried to allow drilling in ANWR:

    By a vote of 56-44, Dems blocked a cloture motion and prevented passage of a $453 billion fiscal 2006 defense appropriations bill. Alaska Republican Ted Stevens had attached a provision to the bill that would have opened up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling--and this provision ultimately doomed passage.

    Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) charged on the Senate floor, "Our military is being held hostage by this issue, Arctic drilling." Calling the provision "another gift to special interests," he said, "It's time we said no to an abuse of power."

    All but two Republicans supported cloture (Bill Frist's vote allowed a future vote on the bill). Oregon Senator Gordon Smith voted with the Republican majority, failing to join Lincoln Chafee and Mike DeWine in their effort protect ANWR.
    http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/12/senate_dems_sto.html

    So, yes, while the Republicans controlled the Senate, the Democrats filibustered a bill that a majority of the Senate wanted that would have opened ANWR to drilling. (The 56-44 vote was for cloture, which would have ended the filibuster. You need 60 votes for cloture. Thus, 42 Democrats stoped the bill. The 2 Republican votes were irrelevant.)

  13. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    104
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: U.S. proven oil reserves decline 4% in 2006

    Quote Originally Posted by GMusa View Post
    I have seen more and more shows and reports on the news that explain that the U.S. has more oil off our shores then the entire middle east! Now the evniromenest have got to get their heads on straight so we can actually drill for the oil and actually make a ton of money for exporting it since the middle east is drying up quickly!!
    Careful, you're getting me aroused . Would you have a link to that info?

  14. #12
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Further on up the road..
    Posts
    6,455
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 13 Times in 11 Posts

    Re: U.S. proven oil reserves decline 4% in 2006

    The major problem with these vast deep reserves is that as noted getting to them is right now 'cutting edge' [ IOW very very expensive ]. The current price of oil at ~$100 /bbl 'might' justify spending the $Billions needed to develop these reserves, but maybe it would take oil hitting $150 / bbl to make it profitable. At some time in the futrure it may be profitable to get to these reverves but our local prices are going to have to be a lot higher than now - all the time.

    The 'easy oil' is all identified and developed and is actually in decline across the world. If you want to get to this just be ready to 'pay the man'.

  15. #13
    GMI Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    11,887
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,425 Times in 1,474 Posts

    Re: U.S. proven oil reserves decline 4% in 2006

    Quote Originally Posted by HoosierRon View Post
    The Republicans did not control the Senate for 6 years. The Democrats controlled it from 2000 to 2002 because Jim Jeffords switched parties.

    In 2005, the Senate was controlled by Republicans. Here is what happened when the Republicans (again) tried to allow drilling in ANWR:


    http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/12/senate_dems_sto.html

    So, yes, while the Republicans controlled the Senate, the Democrats filibustered a bill that a majority of the Senate wanted that would have opened ANWR to drilling. (The 56-44 vote was for cloture, which would have ended the filibuster. You need 60 votes for cloture. Thus, 42 Democrats stoped the bill. The 2 Republican votes were irrelevant.)
    That doesn't count at all. They were not voting against an energy bill. That was one of those sneaky attachments that I would vote against even if it was for my pet project, because it ought to be illegal. It likely had nowhere near enough detail in it to even be called an energy bill. It was attached like any other sneaky pork legislation by an individual senator after money for his state. The article you link to says that many who voted against it did so because of the principle of not supporting such attachments of any kind.

    But this does not answer the question of why, given the Republicans controlled the Senate and House did they not have and 'actual' energy bill with full details and which was worked out with any sympathetic democrats and voted on properly?

    Your own post's quotes above say that before the democrats lost control that there was a majority (including Democrats) in support of drilling in ANWAR. So why no proper bill?



  16. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,653
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: U.S. proven oil reserves decline 4% in 2006

    Quote Originally Posted by MonaroSS View Post
    That doesn't count at all. They were not voting against an energy bill. That was one of those sneaky attachments that I would vote against even if it was for my pet project, because it ought to be illegal. It likely had nowhere near enough detail in it to even be called an energy bill. It was attached like any other sneaky pork legislation by an individual senator after money for his state. The article you link to says that many who voted against it did so because of the principle of not supporting such attachments of any kind.

    But this does not answer the question of why, given the Republicans controlled the Senate and House did they not have and 'actual' energy bill with full details and which was worked out with any sympathetic democrats and voted on properly?

    Your own post's quotes above say that before the democrats lost control that there was a majority (including Democrats) in support of drilling in ANWAR. So why no proper bill?


    I really have no idea what you mean by "proper bill" and "'actual' energy bill with full details" and "voted on properly" and "sneaky". A Republican senator proposed an amendment. The amendment would have opened ANWR to drilling. The amendment was debated. There was a motion to close the debate. 42 Democrats voted against the motion. By voting against the motion, those 42 senators prevented the amendment from being voted on by the entire Senate.

    The procedure was "proper". Senate rules have provided for filibusters and 60 votes for cloture since Thomas Jefferson wrote them 225 years ago. There was nothing sneaky about it. The amendment was "actual". It was simple, straight forward and everyone knew exactly what it would do. The Democrats' leader, Tom Daschle (who was voted out of office in the next election) was crystal clear: "there will be no compromise on driling in ANWR." Those are his words, not mine.

  17. #15
    GMI Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    11,887
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,425 Times in 1,474 Posts

    Re: U.S. proven oil reserves decline 4% in 2006

    Quote Originally Posted by HoosierRon View Post
    I really have no idea what you mean by "proper bill" and "'actual' energy bill with full details" and "voted on properly" and "sneaky". A Republican senator proposed an amendment. The amendment would have opened ANWR to drilling. The amendment was debated. There was a motion to close the debate. 42 Democrats voted against the motion. By voting against the motion, those 42 senators prevented the amendment from being voted on by the entire Senate.

    The procedure was "proper". Senate rules have provided for filibusters and 60 votes for cloture since Thomas Jefferson wrote them 225 years ago. There was nothing sneaky about it. The amendment was "actual". It was simple, straight forward and everyone knew exactly what it would do. The Democrats' leader, Tom Daschle (who was voted out of office in the next election) was crystal clear: "there will be no compromise on drilling in ANWR." Those are his words, not mine.
    Now you're just being disingenuous. You know what a proper stand-alone bill is. It's not a simple drill or not drill amendment tact onto a defence bill in the hope that people will vote for it because of the major bill being passed. Every man and his dog in the US know that an energy bill is important enough to not be a tacked on amendment.

    It would contain details that could be debated and refined to achieve consensus about issues like access roads and wildlife migration routes under/over roads or pipelines. It would have details of environmental impact studies to be done, and of limits to what can and can't be done in terms of changing the environment. Also what state the environment would have to be returned to after drilling, after wells were empty etc. It would have details of what precautions, material and trained personnel etc would need to be propositioned to cope with any environmental spills or contaminations due to accidents etc.

    In other words, if there were any real intention to sway swinging voters over in support of this it would be a comprehensive bill that addressed the concerns of swing Senators in order to ensure passage. The fact that none of that was done just says it was a stunt designed simply to elicit a political result which was that the Democrats would have no choice but to vote against it just so people like you could misrepresent it and gain votes in the past elections. This is business as usual in Washington. Nothing is what it appears to be on the surface. Don't trust anyone on any issue, or you end up being their patsy like now.

    And Tom Daschle only votes one vote. Nearly every bill that gets passed does so with the votes of those across the isle. He obviously would not be one of those on this matter but there were other Democrats who would. Your first piece says the Republicans claimed explicitly they had Democratic support. But they never introduced a comprehensive bill that would garner that support, so they never actually wanted ANWAR to pass. That drilling in ANWAR amendment attachment failed because the Republicans designed it to fail. Simple as that…..



    Last edited by MonaroSS; 11-29-2007 at 05:47 AM.

  18. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.1.2