This is very interesting. CNW Marketing Research, conducted a two year study regarding the cost from cradle to grave of hybrid vehicle and gas vehicles. They conclude that even though hybrid cars use less fuel, they require more energy than conventional cars because their design and manufacture are more complex and the costs of disposal or recycling are higher for their batteries, electric motors and other specialized components. Therefore they are worse for the environment.
Study questions hybrids’ energy savings
Full Version: Hybrids worse for the environment
Interesting. But would the same be true once (if) hybrids become the norm? Then their parts wouldn't be so specialized, we probably have better tech in place for recycling, etc.
QUOTE
The CNW report isn’t the first to knock gasoline/electric cars. Fuel economy far lower than federally published estimates, combined with purchase prices thousands of dollars above those of comparable conventional models led the prestigious Consumer Reports last month to question the cars’ value in saving buyers money. It concluded that only two hybrids, the Prius and Civic, recover their price premiums and save owners money within the first five years or 75,000 miles of ownership and, even then, the savings are only $400 for the Prius and $300 for the Civic.
One could also hope that as more are produced, the price will come down too, but it bears noting that in practice, many hybrid owners aren't really saving money, and the environmental savings are at least somewhat questionable.
To get at the answers to peacefrogs's questions one would have to review the CNW report in much more depth than is reported in that article. But then again, how do you achieve those recycling cost reductions - by forcing more people to buy hybrids than really want them. IMO, forcing people to buy cars they don't want just so that those who do want them experience a benefit doesn't seem quite right.
Better IMO to improve the technology and make the cars a practical, logical and truly cost-effective investment rather than a curiosity, and then the market will accept them. The problem is, these things are really not yet ready for Prime Time, as they say.
[quote name='BMIC' post='58043' date='Jun 15 2006, 11:14 AM'][quote]But then again, how do you achieve those recycling cost reductions - by forcing more people to buy hybrids than really want them. IMO, forcing people to buy cars they don't want just so that those who do want them experience a benefit doesn't seem quite right.[/quote]
Never said anything about "forcing" people to buy them. But let's face it: these vehicles are yuppie-Hollywood trendy, which means a lot of people will probably jump on the bandwagon sooner or later--no force required.
Never said anything about "forcing" people to buy them. But let's face it: these vehicles are yuppie-Hollywood trendy, which means a lot of people will probably jump on the bandwagon sooner or later--no force required.
but, i read it takes so much energy to produce this type of fuel, just how much does it save , or is it a mind thing.
Speaking of the environment ... even the Canadians are making fun of Gore and his dire predictions:
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
A little too long-winded there, Snoop, but I suspect I agree. I think the professional environmentalists are a lot like our local "Building Community" group. They exaggerate risks in order to make themselves seem more important and to ensure their continued employment and grab media attention. If it were ever definitively proven that the only global climate change observed is all simply normal variation and not caused by man, the last people who would admit it would be the professional scaremongering "Climate Experts".
The article is correct in pointing out that there's definitely a large number of highly-qualified scientists who are unconvinced that greenhouse gases and global warming are the kind of serious looming man-made crisis that the enviro-nazis portray them to be.
The article is correct in pointing out that there's definitely a large number of highly-qualified scientists who are unconvinced that greenhouse gases and global warming are the kind of serious looming man-made crisis that the enviro-nazis portray them to be.
QUOTE (Snoopy @ Jun 15 2006, 12:11 PM) 
Speaking of the environment ... even the Canadians are making fun of Gore and his dire predictions:
And this has to do with hybrids how?
Get over it already Snoopy, Gore can't take the presidency from your man Bush, although if there were a vote today..... 
While I was looking the article again to post here, I also found some interesting information on FreedomCAR. In 2000 several concept cars were developed that got 80-90 mpg. Nothing ever became of them because they couldn't meet the US emissions standards.
The prices are going to have to come down first, especially the $5,000 - $6,000 to replace the battery.
QUOTE
Never said anything about "forcing" people to buy them. But let's face it: these vehicles are yuppie-Hollywood trendy, which means a lot of people will probably jump on the bandwagon sooner or later--no force required.
The prices are going to have to come down first, especially the $5,000 - $6,000 to replace the battery.
Hybrid Car Costs Closer to Breakeven
http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/on/index.cfm?...5&nav=pf_hp
UPDATE: Hybrids Are Starting To Make More Fiscal Sense
August 22, 2006
By Shawn Langlois
SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones) -- Just last summer, hybrid cars didn't make much financial sense. One year and 35 cents a gallon later, they still might not, but they're getting much closer, according to a recent study from car-buying research Web site Edmunds.com.
"Hybrid shoppers in previous years tended to be more concerned about the environment than they were about saving money," said analyst Alex Rosten. "Now, with gas prices the way they are, people are really looking at hybrids to save money."
And, in some cases, the savings are there for the taking.
With help from a hefty tax credit, consumers driving their vehicle 15,000 miles a year completely recover the premium paid for on the Ford (F) , Escape Hybrid and Toyota ™ Prius within three years.
For other cars, like the Honda (HMC) Civic Hybrid, Saturn VUE Green Line and Toyota Camry Hybrid, the break-even point takes six years to reach, the study showed.
Keep in mind, however, that the full tax credit is only given to buyers until shortly after the manufacturer sells 60,000 hybrids. After that, the credit gets cut in half.
Toyota and its luxury Lexus division are already there, so anyone who purchases a hybrid from the Japanese manufacturer after Sept. 30 only qualifies for half the tax credit. And that credit will drop to 25% in April 2007 and then to zero in Oct. 2007.
It's no small chunk of change either. The Prius comes with a tax credit of $3,150 while the Camry Hybrid brings actual tax savings of $2,600.
"If you're in the market for a hybrid, right now is the best time to buy," said Joanne Helperin, senior editor of Edmunds.com's Fuel Economy Guide. "It will take buyers much longer to break-even if their tax credit is halved."
Of course, buying a Prius ahead of the deadline might not be all that easy, considering the long waiting lists that push well past that date. And then there's the premiums. The Camry sells about $1,522 above the sticker, while the Prius can go for up to $4,000 more.
But you don't need to hurry up and buy a Prius or Camry to reap the benefits of the fleeting tax savings. There are plenty of other options and the list is growing, though none look to dethrone Toyota as king of the hybrid market.
That could be a good thing for those looking to buy a Honda or Ford. Both automakers have a long way to go before reaching the 60,000-vehicle threshold, and their menu includes the Insight, Civic Hybrid, Accord Hybrid, Escape Hybrid and Mercury Mariner Hybrid.
Vehicle vs. Non-Hybrid model Hybrid Premium Annual Gas Savings Years to Break Even @15K Miles a Year Years to Break Even @25K Miles a Year
Saturn Vue Hybrid $1,660 $294 5.7 3.4
Ford Escape Hybrid $1,218 $425 2.9 1.7
Toyota Prius (vs. camry) $1,393 $671 2.1 1.2
Honda Accord Hybrid $3,165 $280 11.3 6.8
Toyota Highlander Hybrid $6,896 $445 15.5
http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/on/index.cfm?...5&nav=pf_hp
UPDATE: Hybrids Are Starting To Make More Fiscal Sense
August 22, 2006
By Shawn Langlois
SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones) -- Just last summer, hybrid cars didn't make much financial sense. One year and 35 cents a gallon later, they still might not, but they're getting much closer, according to a recent study from car-buying research Web site Edmunds.com.
"Hybrid shoppers in previous years tended to be more concerned about the environment than they were about saving money," said analyst Alex Rosten. "Now, with gas prices the way they are, people are really looking at hybrids to save money."
And, in some cases, the savings are there for the taking.
With help from a hefty tax credit, consumers driving their vehicle 15,000 miles a year completely recover the premium paid for on the Ford (F) , Escape Hybrid and Toyota ™ Prius within three years.
For other cars, like the Honda (HMC) Civic Hybrid, Saturn VUE Green Line and Toyota Camry Hybrid, the break-even point takes six years to reach, the study showed.
Keep in mind, however, that the full tax credit is only given to buyers until shortly after the manufacturer sells 60,000 hybrids. After that, the credit gets cut in half.
Toyota and its luxury Lexus division are already there, so anyone who purchases a hybrid from the Japanese manufacturer after Sept. 30 only qualifies for half the tax credit. And that credit will drop to 25% in April 2007 and then to zero in Oct. 2007.
It's no small chunk of change either. The Prius comes with a tax credit of $3,150 while the Camry Hybrid brings actual tax savings of $2,600.
"If you're in the market for a hybrid, right now is the best time to buy," said Joanne Helperin, senior editor of Edmunds.com's Fuel Economy Guide. "It will take buyers much longer to break-even if their tax credit is halved."
Of course, buying a Prius ahead of the deadline might not be all that easy, considering the long waiting lists that push well past that date. And then there's the premiums. The Camry sells about $1,522 above the sticker, while the Prius can go for up to $4,000 more.
But you don't need to hurry up and buy a Prius or Camry to reap the benefits of the fleeting tax savings. There are plenty of other options and the list is growing, though none look to dethrone Toyota as king of the hybrid market.
That could be a good thing for those looking to buy a Honda or Ford. Both automakers have a long way to go before reaching the 60,000-vehicle threshold, and their menu includes the Insight, Civic Hybrid, Accord Hybrid, Escape Hybrid and Mercury Mariner Hybrid.
Vehicle vs. Non-Hybrid model Hybrid Premium Annual Gas Savings Years to Break Even @15K Miles a Year Years to Break Even @25K Miles a Year
Saturn Vue Hybrid $1,660 $294 5.7 3.4
Ford Escape Hybrid $1,218 $425 2.9 1.7
Toyota Prius (vs. camry) $1,393 $671 2.1 1.2
Honda Accord Hybrid $3,165 $280 11.3 6.8
Toyota Highlander Hybrid $6,896 $445 15.5
If this is too off-topic, mods feel free to move it...
Realize for a moment -- this oil is under 1.3 miles of water and another 3.8 miles of earth beneath that. Yet they're able to get it.
Chevron taps vast oil pool in Gulf
By Brad Foss
ASSOCIATED PRESS
September 6, 2006
A trio of oil companies led by Chevron Corp. has tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that has the potential to boost the nation's reserves by more than 50 percent. A test well indicates it could be the biggest domestic oil discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay more than a generation ago.
But the vast oil deposit about four miles beneath the ocean floor won't significantly reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil and won't help lower prices at the pump anytime soon.
"It's a nice positive, but the U.S. still has a big difference between its consumption and indigenous production," said Art Smith, chief executive officer of energy consultant John S. Herold Inc. "We'll still be importing more than 50 percent of our oil needs."
Chevron yesterday estimated that the 300-square-mile region where its test well sits could hold 3 billion to 15 billion barrels of oil and natural gas liquids. The U.S. consumes about 5.7 billion barrels of crude oil in a year.
It will take many years and tens of billions of dollars to bring the newly tapped Gulf oil to market, but the discovery carries particular importance for the industry at a time when Western oil and gas companies are finding fewer opportunities in politically unstable parts of the world, including the Middle East, Africa and Russia.
The proximity of the Gulf of Mexico to the world's largest oil-consuming nation makes it especially attractive. And it could bring pressure on Florida and other states to relax limits they have placed on drilling in their offshore waters for environmental and tourism reasons.
The country's reserves currently are equivalent to more than 29 billion barrels of oil, according to the Energy Department. The oil fields at Prudhoe Bay, discovered in 1968, are the largest in North America. Since 1977, more than 12.8 billion barrels of oil have been pumped from there.
But the U.S. imports most of its oil, and its overall supply is tiny compared with that of Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil-producing nation, whose reserves exceed 250 billion barrels.
Chevron's well, called "Jack 2," was drilled about 5.3 miles below sea level.
The well was drilled in the Walker Ridge area of the Gulf, about 270 miles southwest of New Orleans and 175 miles off the coast of Louisiana. It was a follow-up to a discovery made by Chevron in 2004.
Chevron said the well set a variety of records, including being the deepest well successfully tested in the Gulf of Mexico. The San Ramon, Calif., company said the well was drilled more than 20,000 feet under the sea floor below 7,000 feet of water for a total depth of 28,175 feet.
Chevron has a 50 percent stake in the field, and partners Statoil ASA of Norway and Devon Energy Corp. of Oklahoma City own 25 percent each.
Realize for a moment -- this oil is under 1.3 miles of water and another 3.8 miles of earth beneath that. Yet they're able to get it.
Chevron taps vast oil pool in Gulf
By Brad Foss
ASSOCIATED PRESS
September 6, 2006
A trio of oil companies led by Chevron Corp. has tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that has the potential to boost the nation's reserves by more than 50 percent. A test well indicates it could be the biggest domestic oil discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay more than a generation ago.
But the vast oil deposit about four miles beneath the ocean floor won't significantly reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil and won't help lower prices at the pump anytime soon.
"It's a nice positive, but the U.S. still has a big difference between its consumption and indigenous production," said Art Smith, chief executive officer of energy consultant John S. Herold Inc. "We'll still be importing more than 50 percent of our oil needs."
Chevron yesterday estimated that the 300-square-mile region where its test well sits could hold 3 billion to 15 billion barrels of oil and natural gas liquids. The U.S. consumes about 5.7 billion barrels of crude oil in a year.
It will take many years and tens of billions of dollars to bring the newly tapped Gulf oil to market, but the discovery carries particular importance for the industry at a time when Western oil and gas companies are finding fewer opportunities in politically unstable parts of the world, including the Middle East, Africa and Russia.
The proximity of the Gulf of Mexico to the world's largest oil-consuming nation makes it especially attractive. And it could bring pressure on Florida and other states to relax limits they have placed on drilling in their offshore waters for environmental and tourism reasons.
The country's reserves currently are equivalent to more than 29 billion barrels of oil, according to the Energy Department. The oil fields at Prudhoe Bay, discovered in 1968, are the largest in North America. Since 1977, more than 12.8 billion barrels of oil have been pumped from there.
But the U.S. imports most of its oil, and its overall supply is tiny compared with that of Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil-producing nation, whose reserves exceed 250 billion barrels.
Chevron's well, called "Jack 2," was drilled about 5.3 miles below sea level.
The well was drilled in the Walker Ridge area of the Gulf, about 270 miles southwest of New Orleans and 175 miles off the coast of Louisiana. It was a follow-up to a discovery made by Chevron in 2004.
Chevron said the well set a variety of records, including being the deepest well successfully tested in the Gulf of Mexico. The San Ramon, Calif., company said the well was drilled more than 20,000 feet under the sea floor below 7,000 feet of water for a total depth of 28,175 feet.
Chevron has a 50 percent stake in the field, and partners Statoil ASA of Norway and Devon Energy Corp. of Oklahoma City own 25 percent each.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.