$5 GAS BY MEMORIAL DAY: So how many think that the voters will forgive this

[edthecynic]

Again, let's use BP as an example. BP uses a different size pipe in digging its exploratory wells. Others use a small size pipe for exploration and then enlarge the well if they find oil.
BP uses a larger pipe for exploration so they can use the same well they explore with for production. But when BP found a massive oil pocket at the Deepwater Horizon site did they then go into production with the well??? Hell no, they capped it and kept the new found oil off the market.

Wells are drilled, not "dug". But that's just semantics.

Initial well bore size is determined by a number of parameters, the most important being the targeted depth of the formation. This is because the deeper the well, the more intermediate strings of casing that need to be cemented into place. Successively smaller strings are cemented into the wellbore as drilling progresses.

Often times the initial well is an "appraisal" well, and is temporarily sealed. The drillstring is retrieved and then deliniated through the existing well bore in order to assess the extent of a formation. This might be done several times. A number of deliniations can be kicked off from a single well bore.

As for "keeping oil off the market", it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive.

As for "keeping oil off the market", it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive

You must remember who you're dealing with. In the mind of a liberal it would make perfect sense.

And it makes dollars and cents in the mind of a monopolist!!!
But CON$ refuse to accept the fact that monopolies still exist, so ignorance is their bliss.

 

[tigerbob]

Just paid $92 to fill my truck with 87. Ouch.

 

[boedicca]

Wells are drilled, not "dug". But that's just semantics.

Initial well bore size is determined by a number of parameters, the most important being the targeted depth of the formation. This is because the deeper the well, the more intermediate strings of casing that need to be cemented into place. Successively smaller strings are cemented into the wellbore as drilling progresses.

Often times the initial well is an "appraisal" well, and is temporarily sealed. The drillstring is retrieved and then deliniated through the existing well bore in order to assess the extent of a formation. This might be done several times. A number of deliniations can be kicked off from a single well bore.

As for "keeping oil off the market", it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive.

As for "keeping oil off the market", it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive

You must remember who you're dealing with. In the mind of a liberal it would make perfect sense.

And it makes dollars and cents in the mind of a monopolist!!!
But CON$ refuse to accept the fact that monopolies still exist, so ignorance is their bliss.

No it doesn't you sad little booby. A real monopolist would tie up the rights via political connections without spending anything on development.

 

[Mr. H.]

Again, let's use BP as an example. BP uses a different size pipe in digging its exploratory wells. Others use a small size pipe for exploration and then enlarge the well if they find oil.
BP uses a larger pipe for exploration so they can use the same well they explore with for production. But when BP found a massive oil pocket at the Deepwater Horizon site did they then go into production with the well??? Hell no, they capped it and kept the new found oil off the market.

Wells are drilled, not "dug". But that's just semantics.

Initial well bore size is determined by a number of parameters, the most important being the targeted depth of the formation. This is because the deeper the well, the more intermediate strings of casing that need to be cemented into place. Successively smaller strings are cemented into the wellbore as drilling progresses.

Often times the initial well is an "appraisal" well, and is temporarily sealed. The drillstring is retrieved and then deliniated through the existing well bore in order to assess the extent of a formation. This might be done several times. A number of deliniations can be kicked off from a single well bore.

As for "keeping oil off the market", it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive.

As for "keeping oil off the market", it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive

You must remember who you're dealing with. In the mind of a liberal it would make perfect sense.

Liberal? Nah- more like conspiracy theorist.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

DOWN, before Bush said two sylables, from the high of $147 a barrel on the 12th after Iran tested a new missile increasing the threat of an Israeli, US attack on Iran!!! The prices had nothing to do with supply, so it is illogical to argue that a speech about supply would affect prices.

Fuel prices: Iran missile launches send oil to $147 a barrel record | Business | The Guardian

Fuel prices: Iran missile launches send oil to $147 a barrel record

• Saturday 12 July 2008 <li class="history">Article history Oil prices surged to a new record of $147 a barrel yesterday on increasing tension between the west and Iran.
  Brent crude rose to $147.02 in London, while in the US light sweet crude was up by more than $3 to $146.90.
  Iran this week tested missiles capable of reaching Israel, leading US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice to warn that America would defend its allies. Iran, second largest producer in the oil cartel Opec, responded with another missile launch.
  Neither the US nor Israel has ruled out a military strike on Iran. Traders fear the oil-producing nation could retaliate by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world's tanker traffic passes.
  "There's always a fear premium in pricing," said Jeff Brown, managing director of Facts Global Energy. "The tensions in Iran and the threat of supply disruption will help support oil prices."

one more time for stupid on july 14th 2008 crude oil prices per barrel was 145.00
On the July 15th 2008 the day after Bush lifted the ban oil prices droped. Deal with it.

One more time for the moronic, prices were higher before July 14th and were down from the $147 record high to $145 before Bush spoke on the 14th. Prices rose to $146 after Bush spoke. Then Bernanke spoke on the 15th and IMMEDIATELY prices fell. Bush was ignored, Bernanke was listened to according to YOUR own link.

Stupid from your link 146.34 is not 147.00. and the spin your making does not matter. Bush lifted the ban and the next day prices droped. Good timing on Bushes part? maybe but it does not change anything prices dropped. Have fun with that stupid.

 

[edthecynic]

one more time for stupid on july 14th 2008 crude oil prices per barrel was 145.00
On the July 15th 2008 the day after Bush lifted the ban oil prices droped. Deal with it.

One more time for the moronic, prices were higher before July 14th and were down from the $147 record high to $145 before Bush spoke on the 14th. Prices rose to $146 after Bush spoke. Then Bernanke spoke on the 15th and IMMEDIATELY prices fell. Bush was ignored, Bernanke was listened to according to YOUR own link.

Stupid from your link 146.34 is not 147.00. and the spin your making does not matter. Bush lifted the ban and the next day prices droped. Good timing on Bushes part? maybe but it does not change anything prices dropped. Have fun with that stupid.

Hey dumbass, the chart from your link is the oil price on the 15th. The price started the day up from the $145 the day Bush spoke. Bernenke spoke in the morning of the 15th and the price dropped IMMEDIATELY.

The $147 price was from the 12th after Iran tested a new longer range missile, which I linked to earlier in this thread, so the price was down from $147 to $145 before Bush spoke on the 14th, up to $146 at the start of the 15th after Bush spoke on the 14th, and down IMMEDIATELY after Bernanke spoke in the morning of the 15th. Have fun with that moron.

 

[Mr. H.]

Wells are drilled, not "dug". But that's just semantics.

Initial well bore size is determined by a number of parameters, the most important being the targeted depth of the formation. This is because the deeper the well, the more intermediate strings of casing that need to be cemented into place. Successively smaller strings are cemented into the wellbore as drilling progresses.

Often times the initial well is an "appraisal" well, and is temporarily sealed. The drillstring is retrieved and then deliniated through the existing well bore in order to assess the extent of a formation. This might be done several times. A number of deliniations can be kicked off from a single well bore.

As for "keeping oil off the market", it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive.

As for "keeping oil off the market", it makes no sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling a well with the intention of keeping it non-productive

You must remember who you're dealing with. In the mind of a liberal it would make perfect sense.

And it makes dollars and cents in the mind of a monopolist!!!
But CON$ refuse to accept the fact that monopolies still exist, so ignorance is their bliss.

As I requested in an earlier reply, I'd appreciate some information on the alleged oil monopoly.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

One more time for the moronic, prices were higher before July 14th and were down from the $147 record high to $145 before Bush spoke on the 14th. Prices rose to $146 after Bush spoke. Then Bernanke spoke on the 15th and IMMEDIATELY prices fell. Bush was ignored, Bernanke was listened to according to YOUR own link.

Stupid from your link 146.34 is not 147.00. and the spin your making does not matter. Bush lifted the ban and the next day prices droped. Good timing on Bushes part? maybe but it does not change anything prices dropped. Have fun with that stupid.

Hey dumbass, the chart from your link is the oil price on the 15th. The price started the day up from the $145 the day Bush spoke. Bernenke spoke in the morning of the 15th and the price dropped IMMEDIATELY.

The $147 price was from the 12th after Iran tested a new longer range missile, which I linked to earlier in this thread, so the price was down from $147 to $145 before Bush spoke on the 14th, up to $146 at the start of the 15th after Bush spoke on the 14th, and down IMMEDIATELY after Bernanke spoke in the morning of the 15th. Have fun with that moron.

I see so the oil prices did drop the day after Bush lifted the ban. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[edthecynic]

You must remember who you're dealing with. In the mind of a liberal it would make perfect sense.

And it makes dollars and cents in the mind of a monopolist!!!
But CON$ refuse to accept the fact that monopolies still exist, so ignorance is their bliss.

As I requested in an earlier reply, I'd appreciate some information on the alleged oil monopoly.

There is no alledged about it.
I don't understand your problem with the Rockefeller oil monopoly. Do you deny that John D had a monopoly 100 years ago? If not, what do you think made him or his family give up their monopoly?

 

[Big Fitz]

You must remember who you're dealing with. In the mind of a liberal it would make perfect sense.

And it makes dollars and cents in the mind of a monopolist!!!
But CON$ refuse to accept the fact that monopolies still exist, so ignorance is their bliss.

No it doesn't you sad little booby. A real monopolist would tie up the rights via political connections without spending anything on development.

"The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
"Forget it... he's rolling."

 

[edthecynic]

You must remember who you're dealing with. In the mind of a liberal it would make perfect sense.

And it makes dollars and cents in the mind of a monopolist!!!
But CON$ refuse to accept the fact that monopolies still exist, so ignorance is their bliss.

No it doesn't you sad little booby. A real monopolist would tie up the rights via political connections without spending anything on development.

The monopolists are doing that too!!! One does not exclude the other.

The monopolists are trying to get more leases from the government even though they haven't developed the leases they already have. They continue to explore because wells go dry, but they will not put any new oil finds on the market until an old well becomes unproductive.

 

[Mr. H.]

And it makes dollars and cents in the mind of a monopolist!!!
But CON$ refuse to accept the fact that monopolies still exist, so ignorance is their bliss.

As I requested in an earlier reply, I'd appreciate some information on the alleged oil monopoly.

There is no alledged about it.
I don't understand your problem with the Rockefeller oil monopoly. Do you deny that John D had a monopoly 100 years ago? If not, what do you think made him or his family give up their monopoly?

I'm referring to this:

Again, any new oil that is found by the big oil monopolies does not make it on to the market, to keep supply artificially low and prices artificially high. Giving them more access to drilling sites will only lead to them controlling more of the supply they keep off the market.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

A lot of that price differential might be because we are using winter gas. Winter gas has ethenol blends dependent on each areas air pollution requirements.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

How bout not giving Brazilian Oil Companies $Millions in American Tax Dollars to drill for Oil? What's wrong with American Oil Companies? I know the usual suspects love to demonize them but at least with them we would create some more American Jobs. We should not be creating more Brazilian Jobs. We should be creating more American Jobs. I don't understand any of this President's policies. They just don't add up.

 

[uscitizen]

administration by the time elections role around.....Think maybe this administration should have listen to the calls for energy Independence a couple of years back?

@While I agree that this is a problem, I of course cannot agree with you that the problem can be laid at the current POTUS's feet.

If anything I'm blaming CHEYNEY, but I think the majority of the problem is market driven, not politically driven.

Yeah that's right, the market, not politics is at the heart of this problem.

Yes it can be laid at the feet of the current president.
When Bush lifted the offshore drilling ban what happen to gas prices? Was it a dream or did they start to drop?

LMAO, Bush did NOT lift the offshore drilling ban. Well maybe in an area or two. However Bush endorsed most of the offshore drilling ban areas. Rich people do not want to have oil on their beaches.

 

[uscitizen]

How bout not giving Brazilian Oil Companies $Millions in American Tax Dollars to drill for Oil? What's wrong with American Oil Companies? I know the usual suspects love to demonize them but at least with them we would create some more American Jobs. We should not be creating more Brazilian Jobs. We should be creating more American Jobs. I don't understand any of this President's policies. They just don't add up.

American oil companies?
BP? Shell? who?

 

[Mr. H.]

How bout not giving Brazilian Oil Companies $Millions in American Tax Dollars to drill for Oil? What's wrong with American Oil Companies? I know the usual suspects love to demonize them but at least with them we would create some more American Jobs. We should not be creating more Brazilian Jobs. We should be creating more American Jobs. I don't understand any of this President's policies. They just don't add up.

American oil companies?
BP? Shell? who?

How about the folks who drill 90% of the wells in this country - the Independents.

 

[uscitizen]

How bout not giving Brazilian Oil Companies $Millions in American Tax Dollars to drill for Oil? What's wrong with American Oil Companies? I know the usual suspects love to demonize them but at least with them we would create some more American Jobs. We should not be creating more Brazilian Jobs. We should be creating more American Jobs. I don't understand any of this President's policies. They just don't add up.

American oil companies?
BP? Shell? who?

How about the folks who drill 90% of the wells in this country - the Independents.

only VERY BIG "independents" drill offshore. And often with foreign labor.

 

[edthecynic]

As I requested in an earlier reply, I'd appreciate some information on the alleged oil monopoly.

There is no alledged about it.
I don't understand your problem with the Rockefeller oil monopoly. Do you deny that John D had a monopoly 100 years ago? If not, what do you think made him or his family give up their monopoly?

I'm referring to this:

Again, any new oil that is found by the big oil monopolies does not make it on to the market, to keep supply artificially low and prices artificially high. Giving them more access to drilling sites will only lead to them controlling more of the supply they keep off the market.

OK, so you are not denying that the Rockefeller family controls the oil monopoly still. You are objecting to the fact that the oil monopoly desires to control the oil leases without producing oil on the leased land.

Here is a link to an interactive map that lists the number of oil leases for each state you click on and the % of non-producing leased acreage.
For example 76.7% of the land leased in Texas is non-producing.

Big oil claims there is no oil on the non-producing land, but when the government offered to release them from the remainder of the non-productive leases in exchange for new leases, the oil monopoly refused. The want to keep paying for the non-productive leases as well as acquire new leases.

Now why do you think the oil monopoly would be willing to keep paying on non-productive leases when they could get out of the non-productive leases in exchange for new potentially productive leases???? Three guesses, and the first two don't count.

oilgas

 

[edthecynic]

How bout not giving Brazilian Oil Companies $Millions in American Tax Dollars to drill for Oil? What's wrong with American Oil Companies? I know the usual suspects love to demonize them but at least with them we would create some more American Jobs. We should not be creating more Brazilian Jobs. We should be creating more American Jobs. I don't understand any of this President's policies. They just don't add up.

Once the CON$ervative Brotherhood latches onto a lie from GOP hate radio they can't stop themselves from parroting it as programmed.

http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2...he-petrobras-loan-myth-as-obama-heads-to-rio/

Dispelling the Brazil Oil Loan Myth as Obama Heads to Rio

Mar. 17 2011
The rumor started back in the summer of 2010, when Fox News&#8217; controversial conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck said that Obama had lent Petrobras $2 billion for its deep ocean oil drilling off the Atlantic Coast of Espirito Santo and Rio de Janeiro states.
For many, the name Petrobras suddenly became a new, foreign oil name, with ties to liberal investor George Soros to boot. Beck doesn&#8217;t like Soros. And Soros likes Petrobras. And maybe Obama. The takeaway? Obama is helping Petrobras shareholders, like Soros, by giving them a loan at the same time he is (was) banning drilling in the Gulf of Mexico because of the BP Plc oil spill.
Here&#8217;s what is really going on with that $2 billion loan. Petrobras declined to comment on it, but a spokesperson at the Export-Import Bank, which offered Petrobras $2 billion in a preliminary commitment in April 2009, did comment. (And after some due diligence all my own, here are the the &#8220;known-knowns&#8221;.)
The Export Import Bank is a government run bank. It made a preliminary commitment to offer Petrobras $2 billion in April 2009. What that means is, Petrobras could take out a loan from the Bank and use that money not to enrich Soros or shareholders, per se, but to enrich US companies in the energy space, mainly businesses in the oil, natural gas, and oil rig space. The money would in fact come back to the US and, hopefully, even create jobs due to demand for goods and services from Petrobras, one of the biggest oil companies in the Americas.
What&#8217;s become of that $2 billion? On February 4, 2010, the Bank entered into a medium-term credit guarantee facility with Petrobras for $308 million. That means if Petrobras wants, it can go to a bank &#8212; in this case it is JP Morgan &#8212; and take out a loan for $308 million to buy goods and services from US companies. The Export Import Bank then would guarantee that loan from default, which in turn makes JP Morgan happy because it will not lose money and will make interest on the loan; make Petrobras happy because the loan guarantee means low interest rates on the loan; and it makes the Export Import Bank happy because they can collect fees (undisclosed) and provide a boost to the companies in the US in which Petrobras will do business.
Although the Bank has agreed to guarantee the loan to be made by JP Morgan, the transaction is not operative. That&#8217;s a legal term that means no legal documents have been signed by JP Morgan or Petrobras saying that the loan is active. The Bank approved it, but Petrobras has not acted on it for more than one year later.
In other words, the $308 million is part of the $2 billion offer. Petrobras has not yet tapped a single dime of it.