Offshore Oil in One Year
By josephcollins Posted in Energy — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
One Democratic talking point about offshore oil is that it won't be brought to market for many years even if we start now. Eric Bolling, a trader writing for thestreet.com, gives us this interesting bit of information (emphasis added):
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.
This is a complete deal-breaker for one of the Democrats' favorite talking points.
See how long it really takes. I don't think anyone seriously believes that argument, besides the people using it. If an oil company can only get oil out of a new area in 10 years minimum...what would be the point of them asking for new areas to explore?? A company can't plan 10 years into the future and expend all the money it takes to get a new well going without knowing what they expect to get out of it in the short term. Look at how much has changed in the last 10 years...
They obiously think they can do it quickly.
Yeah, it's doable, because my company did it: drilled the discovery well, installed a (recycled) platform, drilled 3 more wells and completed 4, and installed a new deck, facility and 8,000 ft of pipeline. That's in the Gulf, playing off of existing infrastructure.
BP just brought on the first well at Thunder Horse last week, thought to be the GOM's biggest field, located in 6,000 ft of water off LA. The discovery well was drilled there in 1999. First production was scheduled for 2005, but they experienced, erm, "major technical delays".
I would submit that Transocean is a contractor, not an operator (lessee). As such, they don't really deal with the time frame involved with leasing. Since there are no leases in any of these frontier areas, the feds would have to do Env. Impact Studies, which of course give the greenies something to object to....
I would imagine, just to get the leases in place would be a 3 year process (conducted business-as-usual), without major oppostion in court. yeah, like that's gonna happen.
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. - Frank Zappa
... Bush could declare it a matter of national security, which it is, and bypass all the enviro-cr*pola. The enviros would still sue but by the time they got it to the Supremes the wells would be producing. And hopefully we would see the same reaction from the Court that we saw last week on the border fence.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
If, for say, the President were to open up drilling because oil is a national security issue, would the oil HAVE to stay in the US or could it be put on the world market, & still have the national security effect?
private companies they could sell to whomever they wanted to.
It would have the same effect since oil is a fungible asset.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
For example, the authorization for the TransAlaska Pipeline originally prohibited export of the oil transported through it. Later, much too late after Alaska had given away a lot of oil, that prohibition was lifted because the West Coast refineries lacked the capacity to accept all of the oil being produced in Alaska. So, it could be limited to domestic use or available for export, but the poltics, and the ignorance, are such that almost undoubtedly, any authorization for either Alaska or OCS development would ban export.
In Vino Veritas
So you are saying that...if the way were made clear, we could get More oil in less than 2 years?
I say, if our elected govornment were really serious, we could start drilling very soon. Pass sweeping laws blocking lawsuits against it....I don't know how. Could we Make Oil a national security asset? I am sure if some moonbat wanted to sue to make manufacturing of bullets illegal, it would get smacked down. A poor analogy, I know, but I'm just trying to make a point and I'm not much of a writer.
2 years from now...you think maybey other countries would start drilling more of their OWN oil when they know the richest country in the world is going to stop buying oil from them soon? I bet they would try and get as much cash out of this cow while they could. I think the worldwide price of oil would drop quickly if everyone starts trying to get in the Game before the USA can gobble up the market and stop paying the rest of the world for our own gas.
it. That's one way to frame the 'National Security" aspect of expedited drilling in the GOM, offshore, ANWR and other federal lands.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
Our little development went pretty fast, with all existing technology and in 200 ft of water. Two years might be typical on the Shelf, but that's not where elephants are to be found anymore.
Major new fields, esp. in frontier areas, will have technological, permitting and other hurdles. Thunder Horse is but one example.
Anything developed off the W. Coast of Florida or off the E. coast would need to have onshore infrastructure to support the drilling and a refinery/gas plant or pipeline tie-in. Since more of the Gulf Coast is chock-a-block developed than Prudhoe Bay, I can see it taking some time.
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. - Frank Zappa
were brought on in only about four years of actual construction. The delay from discovery in '68 to production in '77 or '78 was mostly Native Claims settlement, environmental litigation, and re-design to meet environmental objection. There was NO infrastructure in place. Initial test drilling and the initial wells were done in winter on temporary ice roads. Much of the field's actual equipment, rigs, quarters, warehouse, etc. was built in the Lower 48 in modules and shipped by barge convoys in the brief ice-free period in July-August of each year. The service road was built through absolute wilderness from Fairbanks to the field, the 800 mile, 48 inch pipeline to Valdez, and the storage tanks and tanker terminal in Valdez was built in that time.
In contrast, ANWR development would only require developing the actual field and a short feeder line(s) to connect to the existing TAPS - a year, two at the most absent delaying litigation.
In Vino Veritas
formerly known as Naval Petroleum Reserve Four, is a known oil province just west of Prudhoe Bay. It was designated as a strategic oil reserve in the 1920s, best I recall. Unlike ANWR, it doesn't have those hotbutton, though meaningless as I detailed a week or so ago, words like Arctic, Wildlife, and Refuge in its name.
I don't even think a specific Congressional authorization would be required and even if it were, it wouldn't be under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) as is ANWR. The fundamental answer is that if the US wanted to add production, it could, and quickly. It is obvious to the rest of the World, and especially to the oil exporting nations, that the US doesn't want to add production, so they are free to charge what they wish. It really is that simple.
In Vino Veritas
The fundamental answer is that if the US wanted to add production, it could, and quickly. It is obvious to the rest of the World, and especially to the oil exporting nations, that the US doesn't want to add production
Now the people of the US do want to add production, but far too many have forgotten that they are the 'us' in 'US'.
Once they remember, then things will change.
The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning
The National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska was set aside by President Harding in 1923. Since 1980, NPR-A has been managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Of the 22.6 million acres available for lease in the NPR-A, oil companies have leased 3 million acres.
There is no oil production underway in NPR-A at this time.
Hackett on Kudlow yesterday?
He is a great spokesman, not the least because he looks and sounds like a cross between an actor and a preacher.
The guy could do well in politics but what a salary cut!
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Very informative blog entry.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
If we are hurting now imagine in ten years when all of China is driving!! America needs to drill its own oil for its own citizens and create a huge supply of ethanol as well, or with our current infrastructure our economy will take a huge hit. Could we really afford $10 gas as a country?? With China and India buying oil from the same pool as us this isn't impossible, especially if supply doesn't change and the Saudi's don't seem interested in making any more than just a token gesture at increasing supply.
See Gov. Palin's letter to Sen. Reid regarding ANWR development here:
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/125913
This is from the McClatchey-owned Anchorage Daily News' political blog, so the commentary following is FAR from representative of opinion in the State.
In Vino Veritas
The dems will say anything to get the focus off oil because it defeats the environmental leftist agenda