10 Years to Drill For Oil – Another Obama Lie [Reader Post]

Loading

Obama’s big argument against drilling is that it will take 10 years to see any oil. Go to about 1:40 and he flat out says it.

As if anything that would take that long is automatically out of the question, because . . . I guess, . . . we are too . . . impatient? By that rationale, nobody should bother to go to high school or college if you want a decent job. That’ll take at least 8 years and will cost a hell of a lot of money.

His real reason is, of course, that he and his enviro-kook buddies don’t want drilling anywhere, anytime.

But let’s call his bluff on the 10 year B.S. just to set the record straight. It turns out that people who actually know what they are talking about, oil company folks, disagree with His Holiness. From The Street.

A Congressman followed my segment and suggested that drilling wouldn’t help for 10 years or more. I know this is absolutely untrue, so I called Transocean, the biggest driller in the world. An officer of the company told me that depending on the location of the drilling, oil could be realized in as little as a year.

Ultra-deepwater fields might produce in 3-5 years. For the most remote locations, without any prior infrastructure support, that barrel may require a 4-6 year window. I suggested 8 years and he said that he could not envision a situation where it would require more than 6 years to bring a barrel out of the ocean floor.

Hmmm. Where is the 10 year figure? It is a figment of the Obama’s imagination. We can get oil in one year. If we started with nothing and sailed out to sea to drill, it’s 4-6 years, max.

Another liberal lie to prop up environmental extremism at the expense of normal Americans who can’t afford gas to get to work.

H/T Joseph Collins at RedState

Also find Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room

0 0 votes
Article Rating
12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Yes, and Bill Clinton vetoed the plan to drill in ANWR in 1995–13 years ago.

These liberal lies are self perpetuating. Inside their media echo chamber they are repeated over and over and over again until they are accepted as fact.

Sadder still is that any “alternatives” they suggest instead would take twice as long to implement and they know it.

So again, we are left with a conservation only policy by default that will cripple economic growth and impose incredible financial hardship on the majority of America’s consumers.

Damn! This would and should be a run away for Repubs, Can McCain and his advisers not see the great opportunity that has been handed them. If they don’t they don’t deserve to win.

10 years?! Is he just making stuff up now? Imagine… this is the same crowd that complained it was taking too long to get Iraq’s electrical grid back up after only one year, now they say it takes ten years to drill for oil and get it to market? Something is not right here. This is why liberals are bad managers and bad businessmen. They have no sense of reality.

If it is 5 years, we still have to deal with the drilling ship backlog:

“Transocean believes the deepwater market will continue to be constrained until at least 2012. Over three-quarters of the drill-ships currently under construction have already been contracted to oil companies eager to benefit from triple-digit oil prices, Mr. Long said.

And that’s with the current orders. If the federal offshore drilling ban were lifted today, that would presumably lengthen the backlog, unless a lot more shipbuilding capacity were added. ”

Thomas,

The best current estimate I’ve seen for the availability of electricity in Iraq is 12 hours per day.
It’s now over 5 years since the invasion. That’s an odd definition of a grid that’s “up.”

Dave Noble is absolutely correct that there is a drilling rig ship shortage. This estimated time to do the job may be 5-8 years, but if you can’t start for another 3-5, it’s still 13 years. How ’bout that Dave? We’re on the same side for an issue, guy.

But I won’t disappoint you with the rest, I’m sure… LOL. But we can relish in “the moment”, right?

Petroleo Brasileiro is sitting on the largest oil discovery in decades. But unlike a whiny US Congress, Brazil (state owned oil producer) is going for it any way, and ordering “40 drilling ships and platforms worth about $30 billion for delivery by 2017. They are not so short sighted as our pompous elected elite as to assume delay warrants doing nothing for the future but banking on pipedreams and technologies not ready for prime time.

Uh… maybe we can rent some of theirs….

And Brazil is not alone in going ahead with new drilling and development. It just goes to show that the US is a laughing stock… as the rest of the world plans for their future, our elected officials throw money at R&D and “hope”. This is the danger of enviromentalists having such control over Congress.

At every turn the Leftists have another objection to progress:

“We can’t do it.”

“It won’t make any difference.”

“It’ll take too long.”

“The caribou won’t have sex as much.”

“But…but….but….”

Of course, doing nothing solves nothing.

Hmmmm….. Several of those talking points sound rather familiar. Wonder where we have heard them before.

i know for a fact, on dry land it can be less than a year. it cost around 10 million or more to sink
the well. my family own part of mineral rights in west texas. for over 80 years no one wanted to
lease it. in the fall of 2006 pogo sent a lease agreement. they started to drill in sept 2006 and it
started producing nat gas in arpril 2007. what is that 7 months.

Mata,

Brazil also makes ethanol from sugar cane, rather than corn. The processing of ethanol from sugar cane is far more enegy efficient than the processing of ethanol from corn.

Let me guess, the fact that we get our ethanol from corn is the result of some leftist plot. Somehow I suspect it’s more complex than that. Corn-based ethanol has been around for a while now, but he Democratic majority Congress isn’t two years old yet.

Aye Chi,

Lately, I search in vain for fact-based argument in your posts and find rhetoric and sarcasm in its place.

I doubt anyone believes corn vs sugar is a “leftist plot”, Dave Noble. Frankly, there’s not that many areas in the US that are sugar cane friendly growing environments. Hawaii, Florida, some other southern states… Corn just has a bigger potential for our climate location.

It think the sugar cane vs corn as an ethanol base comes into play with how much crop is needed to feed current demand. I suspect we can live with less sugar cane to supply refined sugars than we can corn, which is not only used for human but animal consumption. Then there’s also the problem of crop rotation deficiencies.

However Brazil, unlike a stubborn, enviro-lobby beholding US, isn’t just using sugar, but going after their oil too. That was my point… jus’ in case you missed it…. :0)

BTW, GWB was a corn ethanol proponent, and I disagreed with him then because of the effect on the food products. But, no one listened…. oh well.

I don’t have a problem with using all kinds of alternatives *as supplements*. However ethanol seems to be the dumbest alternative. For the energy costs it takes to produce it, vs output, we’re in the red. So how is that wise?

I think the 10 years figure comes from a recent government study on drilling in ANWR. The report projects the first oil production there in 2018 if drilling were allowed now.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html

I quote from the report:

The assumption that ANWR oil production would begin 10 years after legislation approves the Federal oil and natural gas leasing in the 1002 Area is based on the following 8-to-12 year timeline:

2 to 3 years to obtain leases, including the development of a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) leasing program, which includes approval of an Environmental Impact Statement, the collection and analysis of seismic data, and the auction and award of leases.
2 to 3 years to drill a single exploratory well. Exploratory wells are slower to drill because geophysical data are collected during drilling, e.g., rock cores and well logs. Typically, Alaska North Slope exploration wells take two full winter seasons to reach the desired depth.
1 to 2 years to develop a production development plan and obtain BLM approval for that plan, if a commercial oil reservoir is discovered. Considerably more time could be required if the discovered oil reservoir is very deep, is filled with heavy oil, or is highly faulted. The petroleum company might have to collect more seismic data or drill delineation wells to confirm that the deposit is commercial.
3 to 4 years to construct the feeder pipelines; to fabricate oil separation and treatment plants, and transport them up from the lower-48 States to the North Slope by ocean barge; construct drilling pads; drill to depth; and complete the wells.
The 10-year timeline for developing ANWR petroleum resources assumes that there is no protracted legal battle in approving the BLM’s draft Environmental Impact Statement, the BLM’s approval to collect seismic data, or the BLM’s approval of a specific lease-development proposal.

A more efficient and cost effective renewable energy system is needed. R2
A more efficient and cost effective renewable energy system is needed.
To accelerate the implementation of renewable electric generation with added incentives and a FASTER PAYBACK – ROI. (A method of storing energy, would accelerate the use of renewable energy) A greater tax credit, accelerated depreciation, funding scientific research and pay as you save utility billing. (Reduce and or eliminates the tax on implementing energy efficiency, eliminate increase in Real estate Taxes for energy efficiency improvement). Tax incentive and rebates have to be tripled.
In California, you also have the impediment, that when there are an interruption of power supply by the Utility you the consumer cannot use your renewable energy system to provide power.
In today’s technology there is automatic switching equipment that would disconnect the consumer from the grid, which would permit renewable generation for the consumer even during power interruption. Energy storage technology must advance substantially. “Energy conservation through energy storage”.
New competition for the world’s limited oil and natural gas supplies is increasing global demand like never before. Reserves are dwindling. These and other factors are forcing energy prices to skyrocket here at home. It’s affecting not just the fuel for our cars and homes, it is affecting food prices and it’s driving up electricity costs, too. A new world is emerging. The energy decisions our nation makes today will have huge implications into the next century. We must expedite the implementation of renewable energy.
A synchronous system with batteries allows the blending of a PV with grid power, but also offers the advantage of “islanding” in case of a power failure. A synchronous system automatically disconnects the utility power from the house and operates like an off-grid home during power failures. This system, however, is more costly and loses some of the efficiency advantages of a battery-less system.
We’re surrounded by energy — sun, wind, water. The problem is harnessing it in an economical way.
Jay Draiman, Northridge, CA
June 30, 2008

Jay Draiman Energy Development Specialist provides expertise in all sectors of the energy and utility industry.
Over 20 years experience. Specializing in: Energy Audit, Telecom audit, Utility bills audit and review for refunds or better rates, Demand Management, Energy Efficiency review and implementation, Renewable Energy, Lighting Retrofit, Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Fuel-Cell, Thermal imaging, Rainwater harvesting, Energy conservation, Ice Storage, Water conservation methods, Energy and telecom audit and procurement
Much is at stake when policy makers, regulators, and corporate executives face the challenges of evolving energy markets and efficiency.

http://www.energysavers2.com