Question re: Oil by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Question re: Oil

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 5, 2010 17:48
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 544
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 11:15 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I heard this recently and it shocked me, and I wondered why we didn't hear more about it, or if it's even true.

What I heard was: "Domestic Oil" doesn't exist. Oil is ALL sold on the open market, wherever it was drilled. BP OWNS the oil that is now spilling onto our country, but they SELL it to whoever they want. Ergo, the entire idea of increasing domestic oil to free ourselves from buying it from the Middle East is a falacy; yes, producing from America makes a larger stash of oil from which to buy, but does it matter who you buy it from, if whatever is obtained from one country can be bought by any other?

I can't find anything on the internet about it; does anyone know?

Will come back to read answers, now I GOTTA get off and do something "constructive"!

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 12:14 PM

DREAMTROVE

Interesting and eminently logical. I was just trying to design something similar for an online marketplace. I'm sure you're right niki, and the exchange involves some sort of credit, then trading ownership of already on-the-spot oil to minimize the amount of shipping.

Still, the T Boone Pickens argument holds, the Saudis *are* ending up with a lot of cash from the arrangement, and they are then using it to fight americans, so even if we're not literally *using* their oil, we're still giving them money. So, I guess we're in a financial bind, again, rather than an actual resource shortage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 12:29 PM

BYTEMITE

You heard right, Niki.

The United States is oil impoverished, we have almost none. We found some up in Prudhoe bay, enough to warrant drilling, and petroleum geologists think they might find some off ANWAR, and there was also some found in Texas in the early Rockefeller days. There may also be a little bit in Louisiana, and people around here in Utah want desperately to believe we have oil, or at least, oil shale that we can build the tech to develop. None of the test wells in Utah have had any fruition, there's too much salt water positives by geoseismic mapping in Louisiana for anyone to get lucky drilling, Texas is running out, Prudhoe bay is in decline.

What we DO have is some Natural Gas, which is why people try to push it so hard and call it clean. We have about 35% of the worlds deposits of natural gas. But mainland America has less than 10% of the world's oil. The middle east has like 60-70%. I'm getting this from a report I read from BP on the state of the world's oil resources. Most people say we're running out in 50 years based on that, and of course BP is being optimistic, it could be less than 20 years.

That's assuming that the alternative idea about oil being mantle derived and not fossil derived is true, but that really doesn't make sense to me. We know what's in the mantle from volcanoes, the ocean floor, and seismic velocity/density readings. Lots of Mg, Iron, and Calcium based minerals. This makes sense if you think about it. Carbon and hydrocarbon are not heavy elements. They wouldn't have sunk during the earth's molten formation stage, they would have floated. Most of the carbon is on the earth's surface and taken up in carbon based organisms.

Diatoms laugh at our silly carbon based foolishness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 12:53 PM

BYTEMITE

Now that I read your original post again, I suppose that's not quite the same thing. But maybe you can see why there's no domestic oil. England and Europe also don't have much oil, BP is from England, they went elsewhere to find oil, which meant they had to operate globally. Which means they had to sell globally.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 1:46 PM

DREAMTROVE

We're using local oil, is what I think Niki is suggesting, and that it's a numbers came. Always take industry insider information with skepticism. 10% is quite a bit, after all, we only have 5% of the world's population. Also, bear in mind that Mexico has lots of oil, as does the gulf, and nothern s. america, but that's nothing compared to canada, which may have far more oil than us. I just doubt the underlying data here.

Much of US oil is foreign owned, and all of our neighors have oil. Also, I see that we are not included in the world's disclosed oil figures, something very fishy is going on.

Given the ecology of the US, you can predict our oil reserves pretty easily. Oil seems related to collapsing ecosystems, so glaciation would produce tons of the stuff, explaining Russia and Canada.

Niki has to be right on this one. It just makes perfect logical sense. Sure, we consume a lot, but directly, that's coming from our neighbors. Sure, Chavez might not sell to us, but he'll sell to China, who will just ship it to Cuba or somewhere close by, and then sell it to us. OF course that won't violate any international agreements, because, technically, we'd be buying from China, or whoever they swapped with on the oil exchange, probably Russia, seeing as they're relatively close to China.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 1:54 PM

BYTEMITE

Sure, it does make sense. And I agree with the premise, though I'm still not sure US has that much oil. There may not be much disclosure because we just don't have much.

Or it's mostly oil shale, because that's a complaint I hear a lot. Problem: most oil comes from Mesozoic strata, as far as I'm aware, in permeable sandstone. Problem 2: most of the glaciers deposit till, which is basically a conglomerate of boulders and impermeable clay. That'll make oil shale, maybe, but not the nice oil deposits in very permeable sandstone people are looking for.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 2:10 PM

DREAMTROVE

1) 10% is a lot
2) Canada, Mexico and the caribbean have oil, as doe the continental shelf.
3) The US is very big and contains a wide variety of geology.
4) Ergo, it's logical to predict that parts of the US would emulate it's neighbors: Particularly, the NW, NE and Alaska be like Canada and Russia, Florida to Louisiana would be like the Caribbean, and Texas to California would be like Mexico.

Now apply niki's rule: If oil is discovered, and either pumped or not, and instead of being shipped or sold directly, i exchanged for other oil as part of a large financial deal, than it may not end up getting recorded as part of the overall production.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 4:08 PM

BYTEMITE

Weeell... It really depends on the geological and ecological history of the area. There's ten thousand miles between the northernmost extent of Canada and the Yucatan, climate and influences are going to be different. You can't just say that "Canada has oil, and Mexico has oil, so America must have an average amount of oil between the two evenly distributed."

Off hand, my memory is pretty iffy, but your "canada and mexico have lots of oil" might be really relative.

Also, I read that article two years ago, and as I think about it, it's very possible I misquoted the less than ten percent of the world's oil number, that might have been representative of north america as a whole. I seem to remember that relatively, mexico and canada don't have that much oil either. They might drill for more oil, but that may not necessarily mean they have a lot. In canada, drilling would be isolated in the rockies, no one would be around to complain. And in Mexico, the locals aren't going to raise a fuss, I suspect they'd be happy to just have a job.

But I had notes on that article, I can go find them, and I also can do some research on the history of the area and where you might find oil.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 5:18 PM

DREAMTROVE

The oil industry doesn't really create many jobs.

Alberta has a fairly massive oil well on the surface, but this doesn't take a genius. Glaciated land would probably just have oil, just a guess.

Think this through: If there was carbon in the earth, what would happen to it? Wouldn't all plantlife try to drawn on all of it all of the time?

Now what if you suddenly removed all plantlife?

Just a thought.

Another one: The distribution of oil is also going to ultimately reflect the distribution of land. Sure, some has been more heavily searched, and some just has more oil, but it is unlikely to be as unbalanced as that. Carbon is not all that rare an element.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 5:48 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

No, DT, that's the opposite of what I was asking. Those in favor of drilling talk like that IS the situation, but what I heard is that all oil is sold in one big market, so we don't know "whose" oil we're buying or who buys what's drilled here. That's what I heard.

I actually thought (and this is how they make it sound) that what was being drilled here was "American oil", by American comparnies, for American consumption (I didn't even realize it wasn't American companies doing the drilling...I wonder how many others don't?). Ergo, the more we found at home, the less we had to buy outside. But if what I heard is the case, that's bullshit.

What I got was that ALL oil is sold on one global market, so what we do here to produce oil doesn't make us any more independent than if we didn't? Because that's what I got...that whether it's drilled here or in Timbuktu, it all goes on the same global market and (virtually) anyone can buy any (I'm getting that some places won't sell to other places, but aside from that...). So what is the point in drilling here?? Does it just add a bit more oil to the whole market, thereby dropping the price a tiny bit? I don't get it. I can't imagine we get it cheaper because it's a British company, since I think the price is set (by whom? I was always given to believe the Saudis or someone...?).

They've made it sound all along like whatever we drill in America or off our coasts is "ours"...obviously it's not, it's BP's in this case, but it always sounded like we'd be "buying" less from other countries if we drilled at home!

All this "drill baby drill" doesn't make ANY sense, if that's the case. We're not getting "domestic" oil, we're getting oil off an international market and we may not know WHO it's coming from. That blows my mind, if so. All the points that are made about drilling at home so we're not dependent on "foreign oil" means zilch...we don't know whether we're buying our own or someone else's, even if it was drilled here! That's what blows me away. Just blows me away.

Why doesn't anyone realize this, or figure it out, or be told? Would the cry of "drill baby drill" mean less if everyone knew this? Maybe I'm being dense, can anyone eddicate me? I'm more confused than ever.

And...is it the same for natural gas?

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE