Posted on 02/24/2009 6:45:44 PM PST by PRePublic
FedEx CEO: use of foreign oil threatens US economy The Associated Press - Feb 23, 2009 Chief Executive Fred Smith said Monday that US reliance on foreign oil is the biggest threat to the nation's economy after terrorism.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
I bet Fred wants to drill at home.
Then lets drill our own!!!
At what price per barrel does oil have to be at to make it “worth” producing our own?
brilliant deduction
our throat is in the grasp of Wahabis who despise us. Isn’t that smart?
The answer is “They want us to live in caves.”
Last September, Democrats said that increasing U.S. domestic wouldn’t help matters; because it would take 10 years to show any results.
A prediction for 2018: Democrats oppose drilling because it will “take 10 years to show any results”.
“brilliant deduction”
There’s a reason he’s paid the millions, and it’s certainly not his company’s stock performance.
My kid’s 16 and knows this.
Fortunately America has lots of coal, and coal to oil technology has been well known since WWII.
Now, how can we actually get the politicians to actually allow it.
But not all politicians have the guts to say it.
Bad way to go. Coal is for electrical energy.
For transportation: Oil shale in Montana, oil sand in Canada, and oil drilling everywhere.
But windmills and solar will be ready to take over immediately... well maybe in ten or twenty years or longer.
But, we will have all the wind energy we want is 20 years. The economy means nothing compared to the threat from global warming from carbon based fuels. If is saves one polar bear it is worth it.
That assumes favorable technology breakthroughs (always hard to predict). It also means covering say, the entire state of Nevada or Utah with solar arrays, and maybe Ohio with wind farms to account for some energy use growth. But those are just details, the O is an idea man, he can't be bothered with the little things like science and engineering...
The Jihadis won’t starve for much longer for the worldly bailout recipients, and our kids aren’t going to die to keep their freight fuel cheap.
So either do Iran now, or don’t even think about trying to make us play cops and robbers with the mullahs for decades for you later. And do it right. And stop sending hundreds of billions of tax dollars to foreign manufacturing plants and herding millions of third-world slaves into my country. ...no morale for American men, then no fighty.
Here’s your first lesson on real manhood in leadership.
Denazification, cumulative review. Report, 1 April 1947-30 April 1948.
http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/History.Denazi
~$100
I assume you are kidding. I remember a number bantered around last year when prices had gotten so high... something around $60.
But I assume that your $100 figure includes the court battles it would take to get the permits do even start drilling???
Have you ever calculated how long the estimated 20 billion barrels of American recoverable oil would last?
Assume there is 3 times as much and then divide it by 20 million barrels per day (let’s assume efficiency allows for growth of the economy without growth in oil demand).
How many years did you get?
Oil shale is messy to open mine, requires heat and lots of water to drill, and is very expensive to refine.
You guys do sarcasim well. I’m glad you didn’t spoil it with a </sarc> tag. People here get it.
Let's set aside the fact that proved estimates are probably quite low (because little exploration has been done in undeveloped areas) — conventional oil isn't the only resource being left in the ground.
Canada's conventional oil reserves are about equal to those of the U.S. Our proved reserves in the oil sands are currently at least 139 billion barrels. That estimate is based on today's extraction and refining technology. The proven reserves are actually *growing* faster than extraction. The total potential reserves are over 10 times today's estimates.
The situation is similar, but even more dramatic in the U.S. Best estimates of U.S. oil-shale reserves are 800 billion barrels — recoverable at under $30.00/bbl.
I said “help matters” — not replace *all* foreign imports. Oil is fungible & highly price inelastic (in the short term, at least). A small amount of extra supply would make a huge difference in the world price. That's why OPEC is trying to *reduce* output. They know that a small reduction in supply results in a large increase in price.
However, if the U.S. wants to continue to keep it's reserves underground & help prop up the world price — Canada remains ready to sell you all the over-priced oil we can pump. We'll be able to continue doing that for hundreds of years too. (Unless BHO shuts us down — and either helps OPEC drive the world price of oil over $200/bbl; or destroys the world's economy completely.)
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf
Most of the recovery would be done using in-situ retorting (i.e. pumping steam heat into a drill hole & pumping up oil). Some would be mined underground. Any open-pit mining would be subject to stringent environmental protection regulations.
The heat could come from many sources — nuclear being the best choice. Extracted bitumen could even be used as fuel for the process. Water is recyclable. “Very expensive” is a relative term. Shale oil production would be profitable with oil prices around $25 — $30/bbl. Production would help keep the world price down to around that level.
“Very expensive” is a relative term. Shale oil production would be profitable with oil prices around $25 — $30/bbl. Production would help keep the world price down to around that level.”
Thanks for the comment.
Yes, I used terms that were relative, and qualitative.
But industry articles have used similar terms. I’m not saying there isn’t a need for heavy oil, but my understanding is that the price has to be up around at least $80 barrel for extraction to be profitable.
My reference source is at the rigzone.com
http://www.rigzone.com/howitworks/heavyoil/insight.asp?i_id=288
see PDF “Heavy Oil recovery, The road ahead.”
“...heavy crude is notoriously difficult to recover, transport, and refine.”
Those could be considered qualitative terms, yes?
Here’s another article that details the expense and scaling back of oils sands projects due to low oil prices:
Testing times for Alberta’s oil sands
http://www.heavyoilinfo.com/feature_items/pe_oilsands.pdf/view
My main point was (and remains) that there are huge reserves of heavy oil in the oil shales. IMHO, locking them up is going to prove harmful to the U.S. economy.
Determining the cost of extracting the resource is complex — you have to consider capital costs, long-run average costs, operating costs, sunk costs, etc. etc. — to say nothing of variable royalties and taxes. Suffice it to say that the oil companies (and their major investors) would look at all these factors (and more) before making any investment (or disinvestment) decisions.
While some reserves may cost $80/bbl to extract — others will be much cheaper. The report I linked to earlier mentions costs of under $30/bbl.
Oil companies want to see higher prices, before committing to a project — to give them a cushion, and to ensure a rapid pay back of start-up costs. The oil sands have similar economics — it can cost billions to begin production; but the operating costs from then on are quite low.
The oil companies may or may not have actually developed the oil shales. We won't know now, because they've been locked up by government fiat.
If the U.S. were to develop a part of the oil shales; the additional supply would help keep the world price low for a long time. Instead, under BHO, the U.S. has locked up the shales & a campaign is mounting to have the Alberta oil sands shut down.
In his defense, I'd say part of it is the fact that he FOUNDED FedEx. He also just took a 20% pay cut.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.