Iran says oil price is right at $100 a barrel ($100: panicking OPEC's Maginot Line)

Times of London ^ | 09/05/08 | Angela Jameson

[Nervous Tick]

>> Oil shale and oil (tar) sands have been in production for decades, just not in this country. They all do not require $70/bbl.

I’ll bet there’s a “critical mass” (or, if you prefer, “virtuous circle”) thing to be considered, also.

That is, does sustained production (at whatever price) drive down costs as the technology is improved, which in turn sustains production (at a lower breakeven cost)?

I’m not an oil man but I would guess the answer is “yes”.

[RegulatorCountry]

So, if the price of oil plummets to $50 a barrel, we will still be sending around $350,000,000,000 abroad.

If the price truly plummets, we'll have a repeat of the 80's oil bust, which will completely squelch any new domestic efforts. That's how we got to where we are. Deliberate strategy.

[thackney]

but they import almost as much in refined stock as they export in crude....

Iran imports about 200,000 barrels per day of products and exports about 2,500,000 barrels per day of crude.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iran/Oil.html

[thackney]

There is a new proposed refinery in South Dakota that has not yet received all their pemits (zoning has been approved). If approved, the earliest start-up would be 2014.

South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363121,00.html

[thackney]

And, as best I can tell, that floor is $70/bbl.

Producers such as Shell, which has run a pilot oil shale project for decades in Colorado, has put their profitable range at $30~40 per barrel.

http://www.shell.us/home/content/usa/aboutshell/shell_businesses/upstream/locations_projects/onshore/mahogany/dir_mahogany.html

Oil sands in Canada have been in production for 4 decades. It is a less expensive production cost than oil shale.

[yazoo]

This is the main benefit of drilling in the US. If oil prices drop the economic situation in Iran, and the rest of the middle east, will get far worse. Nothing will bring change faster in Iran than economic chaos in Iran.

[rodguy911]

IF regulation was streamlined for Anwar how many years would it take for them to tap into the existing pipeline?
How long until the existing pipeline gets to 300,000 barrels per day? I understand it's about 750,000 now is that correct?

[LomanBill]

[Hope they didn't take out any sub prime loans or over spend when that oil cash was flowing in.]

 

Ahh, but who do you think is buying the U.S. treasuries which the Fed needed to produce to bail out the sub-prime lenders?  When the Fed creates money, it does so by creating U.S. national debt in the form of U.S. treasuries.   The idea usually is that somebody is supposed to buy those...

 

My guess: OPEC and the Communist Chinese.

 

On a related note,  I suspect the Chinese being allowed into Iraq is a Quid-Pro-Quo for the continuation of this arrangement.

[LomanBill]

>>the leftist environmentalists

Most folks would be very surprised at who actually funds the environmentalists:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/999451/posts?page=67#67

Supply and Demand.

[LomanBill]

[break the back of those countries who now hold sway over such a large part of our future.]

 

How you going to do that when British Petroleum is the largest developer of oil on American Soil?

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/current/pdf/appa.pdf

 

Interesting that the enviroweenies always pick on evil EXXON, when BP is outproducing them by more than 4 to 1.    Hmmm, I wonder who funds the enviroweenies....

 

 

Hey BP GTHOOMC!, 'cause WE didn't vote for your monarchies.

[LomanBill]

>>There is a new proposed refinery in South Dakota

Excellent! - so long as that refinery is owned and run By Americans, For Americans - and not by a bunch of foreign carpetbaggers.

[101voodoo]

[break the back of those countries who now hold sway over such a large part of our future.] "How you going to do that when British Petroleum is the largest developer of oil on American Soil?" The key phrase in what I said was "who hold sway over our future". By that I meant the enemies of the freedom, the Middle East vermin (and Chavez). For every additional barrel of crude we add to our domestic production, that is one less barrel we need to purchase from the ragheads or Chavez.

[rodguy911]

What a world class link thanks for that!!

[LomanBill]

>>"who hold sway over our future"

 

That would certainly describe BP, which is a foreign entity and is the largest developer of Oil on American Soil.

 

>>By that I meant the enemies of the freedom,

 

Do you recall who it was those guys that dumped all that Tea into Boston Harbor were rebelling against?

 

Same game, different inning. Just ask the Irish.

 

There are still folks running around who think they're "royal" and entitled to what's left of the colonies.

 

I do agree with you, American Natural Resources should be developed BY Americans, FOR Americans.  But that's just not necessarily the case if those natural resources are developed and controlled by a bunch of foreign carpetbaggers.

[LomanBill]

You’re welcome, but the credit goes to FReeper Carry_Okie.

[thackney]

IF regulation was streamlined for Anwar how many years would it take for them to tap into the existing pipeline?

At the present time, there has been no crude oil production or exploration in the ANWR coastal plain region. This analysis assumes that enactment of the legislation in 2008 would result in first production from the ANWR area in 10 years.

The primary constraints to a rapid development of ANWR oil resources are the limited weather “windows” for collecting seismic data and drilling wells (a 3-to-4 month winter window) and for ocean barging of heavy infrastructure equipment to the well site (a 2-to-3 month summer window).

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.

Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/methodology.html

How long until the existing pipeline gets to 300,000 barrels per day? I understand it's about 750,000 now is that correct?

The pipeline currently averages 707,259 BPD.

Trans Alaska Pipeline System
http://www.alyeska-pipe.com

It will take a very long time to get below 300k barrels per day (109.5 million barrels per year), even without ANWR, NPRA and the Beaufort & Chukchi seas. Projected production rates are as follows:

State of Alaska > Natural Resources > Oil & Gas
2007 Annual Report
Section Three, Historic and Forecast Production
http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/products/publications/annual/2007_annual_report/3_HistProj_2007.pdf

[101voodoo]

Look, I realize that friends come and go but if you are serious in not counting on the British as allies then I suppose it is best to just drill, drill, drill and develop our resources to the fullest degree so we don’t have to import even one barrel of oil. Of course once we run out then we will be at the mercy of these people for ALL our needs in this area instead of some of it.

Besides, nations don’t have any friends, they only have common interests and as long as we’re the huge importers we are there will be others lined up to sell it to us, “it” being whatever we need or want.

[LomanBill]

>>I suppose it is best to just drill, drill, drill and develop our resources

 

Excellent, so long as it's Americans doing the drill, drill, drilling - and not a bunch of foreign British Petroleum carpetbaggers.

 

The reality IS that British Petroleum IS currently the largest controller/producer of American Oil.

 

That's not good for Americans, or American Ideals - for reasons that were pointed out here.

 

 

BTW, I think we Americans should Drill Drill Drill - and then Cap Cap Cap; and not open the spigot until the OPEC / Islamofascist / Terrorist cash cow is bone dry and Dead Dead Dead.

[101voodoo]

"BTW, I think we Americans should Drill Drill Drill - and then Cap Cap Cap; and not open the spigot until the OPEC / Islamofascist / Terrorist cash cow is bone dry and Dead Dead Dead."

I have thought of this but the development costs are enormous and if the oil is not pumped and refined or at least sold to someone, the oil companies cannot recover their costs much less make a profit. As publically held companies they (The Board of Directors and the Company officers) have fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders and would probably be locked up rather quickly if they committed an enormous sum of money in a project with no reasonable R.O.E in sight.

[LomanBill]

>>I have thought of this but the development
>>costs are enormous

 

Are the development costs more than what it has cost us to secure Iraq?

 

Certainly securing Iraq was in our national interests; but no more so than the development of our own U.S. energy infrastructure.

 

It's simply a matter of motivation.

 

Oh and, it's very interesting that the Chinese are being allowed to develop oil in Iraq, BTW.  Quid Pro Quo for their continued purchasing of the U.S. National debt, perhaps?

 

We secure Iraq, so the Chinese can take the oil, so they will keep financing our debt. 

 

Hmmmm...

 

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
  For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
  And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry. "

 

Maybe somebody should've listened to ol' Billie Shakespeare.