Trajan this guy Ed Henry wasn't serious anyway, his question was a set up. If he'd been serious he'd have gotten a followup. This is his pennance for going to FNC
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Fox reporter get smacked by prez
- Thread starter Luddly Neddite
- Start date
Most know that the only thing a Pres can do to effect the price of a barrell of oil is to declare war on an oil producing country. We did that already and now we are threatening to do it again. And lo and behold. the price goes up.
And every analyst (with the exception of those here) says that the threat of war is what allows the oil futures traders to push the price higher. The fear factor so to speak.
Even mudwhistle agreed that there is no compelling reason that oil drilled here in the USA would be sold any cheaper to US users than anywhere else.
This is the "free market" at work. Except it ain't free cause their ain't no viable option. We will continue to be beat around the head by oil speculators and oil companies and no amount of drilling, permits, pipelines, opening up shale fields or any other action will allow us to flood the worlds oil markets with cheap crude.
What it will allow is access to our diminishing supply of oil, to be drilled and sold to the highest bidder, with no regard to health safeguards (if Rethugs have their way) all the while the US guvmint hands out tax cuts and subsidies to oil companies. At the request of the oil companies favoite Congrespeople.
Until a better alternative comes along, we will just have to live with it. Or we could reign in the commodities Futures markets. But that has been tried already and failed. Or get new Congresspeople.
(which may happen)
But gasoline sure makes a good issue to beat on Presidents with.
And every analyst (with the exception of those here) says that the threat of war is what allows the oil futures traders to push the price higher. The fear factor so to speak.
Even mudwhistle agreed that there is no compelling reason that oil drilled here in the USA would be sold any cheaper to US users than anywhere else.
This is the "free market" at work. Except it ain't free cause their ain't no viable option. We will continue to be beat around the head by oil speculators and oil companies and no amount of drilling, permits, pipelines, opening up shale fields or any other action will allow us to flood the worlds oil markets with cheap crude.
What it will allow is access to our diminishing supply of oil, to be drilled and sold to the highest bidder, with no regard to health safeguards (if Rethugs have their way) all the while the US guvmint hands out tax cuts and subsidies to oil companies. At the request of the oil companies favoite Congrespeople.
Until a better alternative comes along, we will just have to live with it. Or we could reign in the commodities Futures markets. But that has been tried already and failed. Or get new Congresspeople.
(which may happen)
But gasoline sure makes a good issue to beat on Presidents with.
Those "record profits" are still on the low end of corporate earnings.
Seriously AmHorse? You might want to check the record profit numbers of some of the big oil companies. Records for ALL corporations. Ever. Low end. Not hardly.
But it sure felt good when you typed it. Didn't it? Stupid as it was. It felt ssooooo goooooood.
You are talking about quantities of dollars earned. I'm talking about percentage of return on their investment. For percentages of gains, oil company stocks don't lead for return on their investments. It will be the percentage of return that determines a corporation's viability, and the attractivenss of their stock to investors.
Simply because the largest oil companies are very large their profits in dollars are also very large. They provide a lot of product to almost everyone of us; their volume is huge. The investments required to maintain their rolling stock in trade is huge in exploration, inactive leases for future development, etc. And those aren't deductible on their taxes so they show immediately up as dollars earned, except to the degree that they are accelerated.
Right now when the president says he wants to deny oil companies "tax breaks" he's talking about denying oil corporations accelerated writeoffs on those huge allocations of their "income" which your see as so huge in the amount of dollrs. But all corporations get the same types of accelerated writeoffs, and to do it to oil companies we'll have to do it to all corporations.
Will that lower the price of gasoline at the pump? Will that lower the cost of any corporation manufactured products or will it instead slow economic growth and stymie new job creation?
Syphon
Rookie
- Feb 22, 2012
- 1,449
- 84
- 0
- Banned
- #164
so you would rather take a 20% return on investment on a $100,000 as opposed to a 3% return on investment on $3B?Those "record profits" are still on the low end of corporate earnings.
Seriously AmHorse? You might want to check the record profit numbers of some of the big oil companies. Records for ALL corporations. Ever. Low end. Not hardly.
But it sure felt good when you typed it. Didn't it? Stupid as it was. It felt ssooooo goooooood.
You are talking about quantities of dollars earned. I'm talking about percentage of return on their investment. For percentages of gains, oil company stocks don't lead for return on their investments. It will be the percentage of return that determines a corporation's viability, and the attractivenss of their stock to investors.
Simply because the largest oil companies are very large their profits in dollars are also very large. They provide a lot of product to almost everyone of us; their volume is huge. The investments required to maintain their rolling stock in trade is huge in exploration, inactive leases for future development, etc. And those aren't deductible on their taxes so they show immediately up as dollars earned, except to the degree that they are accelerated.
Right now when the president says he wants to deny oil companies "tax breaks" he's talking about denying oil corporations accelerated writeoffs on those huge allocations of their "income" which your see as so huge in the amount of dollrs. But all corporations get the same types of accelerated writeoffs, and to do it to oil companies we'll have to do it to all corporations.
Will that lower the price of gasoline at the pump? Will that lower the cost of any corporation manufactured products or will it instead slow economic growth and stymie new job creation?
Obama Rebukes Fox News' Ed Henry For Gas Price Question At Press Conference (VIDEO)
WHY do they ALWAYS lie about what the prez says?
Then candidate Obama said he had no problem with prices
rising at the pump.The only issue he had was not the price
it was how quickly it was rising.This is common knowledge that he said it.
Now President Obama said he doesn't want it.
The man is a liar...
I wonder what else he is lying about.
Until March 1, the SIG Oil Exploration & Production index (ticker: EPX) tracked this year's rally in Brent crude oil pretty closely. Since then, they have parted ways. Brent is now up by more than 10%, while the EPX has gained just 5%.
The timing is telling. March 1 happened to be the day that erroneous reports of a Saudi Arabian pipeline explosion caused a brief spike in oil prices. Those frenzied few hours of trading laid bare that fear of a supply disruption is buoying oil prices.
For oil and gas producers, such spikes are briefly exhilarating but portend a letdown. Oil and gas equities aren't valued on Nymex's daily swings, but views about medium-to-long-term energy prices. So oil prices rising on the back of strong economic growth, suggesting energy demand will keep rising sustainably, are best. But with Europe's economy dragging, U.S. gasoline demand last week down 8% year-on-year and China moderating its economic-growth targets, this is hardly the case.
So bullish speculation in oil futures today is largely predicated on a supply shock, not rising demand. Those forces, rather than any White House task force, will ultimately undercut oil prices. That is the message from oil and gas producer stocks.
HEARD ON THE STREET: Meet the Nervous Oil Speculators - WSJ.com
The timing is telling. March 1 happened to be the day that erroneous reports of a Saudi Arabian pipeline explosion caused a brief spike in oil prices. Those frenzied few hours of trading laid bare that fear of a supply disruption is buoying oil prices.
For oil and gas producers, such spikes are briefly exhilarating but portend a letdown. Oil and gas equities aren't valued on Nymex's daily swings, but views about medium-to-long-term energy prices. So oil prices rising on the back of strong economic growth, suggesting energy demand will keep rising sustainably, are best. But with Europe's economy dragging, U.S. gasoline demand last week down 8% year-on-year and China moderating its economic-growth targets, this is hardly the case.
So bullish speculation in oil futures today is largely predicated on a supply shock, not rising demand. Those forces, rather than any White House task force, will ultimately undercut oil prices. That is the message from oil and gas producer stocks.
HEARD ON THE STREET: Meet the Nervous Oil Speculators - WSJ.com
Frontier exploration: Non-conventional oil
High oil prices have opened the window to a sea of new exploration opportunities, leading independents and majors to try to develop non-conventional oil from a variety of sources. Two of the most exciting, and most heavily watched, are oil sands and oil shale.
The oil sands in Canada are particularly interesting for a number of reasons, most notably because they are estimated to hold between 1.7 and 2.5 trillion barrels of non-conventional oil (by contrast, Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, has about 260 billion barrels of proven oil reserves). The question, of course, is how to get all that oil out. Oil sands mix bitumen, a carbon-rich sludge, with sand, water, and clay. In order to get crude oil from the sands, the bitumen must be extracted, typically by literally digging up the sands and transporting them by truck to plants, where the bitumen can be processed and "upgraded" (by adding hydrogen) to produce what is known as "syncrude." Additional bitumen can often be recovered in situ, where steam is injected into the sands to pump liquid bitumen out of the ground. This is an energy intensive and expensive process, but it is widely recognized to be cost-effective at $30 per barrel.
Oil shale has similar dynamics. There are an estimated 2.6 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in oil shale around the world, of which over 1 trillion are in the U.S. Essentially, oil shale is sedimentary rock which contains enough organic material to yield oil and gas upon distillation. Numerous methods have been tried to produce oil from oil shale cost-effectively, but the basic technology involves strip-mining the oil shale rock, crushing it, heating it, whereupon the gas, oil vapor, and char separate (a process called "retorting"), and then condensing the oil. Few efforts to process oil shale have been economic at a commercial level, though Estonia, Brazil, China, and Russia currently use oil shale in one form or another (one common, and easier, way to use oil shale is as a power source for power stations).
The economics of oil shale remain shrouded in mystery. Estimates range from an effective oil price of $75-$90 per barrel, from RAND, to Shell's estimates that it can make oil shale profitable in Colorado at $30 per barrel. The truth is likely that oil shale, on a small scale, will be expensive, and like oil sands, very energy intensive. If it can achieve commercial scale, it will likely be cost competitive with other forms of exploration, especially if large discoveries can be made.
According to estimates from Exxon Mobil (XOM) and the recently released report of the National Petroleum Council however, oil will continue to make up the overwhelming majority of world liquid fuel supply and the majority of that oil will come from conventional extraction methods. The charts below show estimated world liquid fuel supply and demand[1] through 2030 and estimated sources of oil supply through 2030.[2]
Industry:Oil & Gas Drilling
High oil prices have opened the window to a sea of new exploration opportunities, leading independents and majors to try to develop non-conventional oil from a variety of sources. Two of the most exciting, and most heavily watched, are oil sands and oil shale.
The oil sands in Canada are particularly interesting for a number of reasons, most notably because they are estimated to hold between 1.7 and 2.5 trillion barrels of non-conventional oil (by contrast, Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, has about 260 billion barrels of proven oil reserves). The question, of course, is how to get all that oil out. Oil sands mix bitumen, a carbon-rich sludge, with sand, water, and clay. In order to get crude oil from the sands, the bitumen must be extracted, typically by literally digging up the sands and transporting them by truck to plants, where the bitumen can be processed and "upgraded" (by adding hydrogen) to produce what is known as "syncrude." Additional bitumen can often be recovered in situ, where steam is injected into the sands to pump liquid bitumen out of the ground. This is an energy intensive and expensive process, but it is widely recognized to be cost-effective at $30 per barrel.
Oil shale has similar dynamics. There are an estimated 2.6 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in oil shale around the world, of which over 1 trillion are in the U.S. Essentially, oil shale is sedimentary rock which contains enough organic material to yield oil and gas upon distillation. Numerous methods have been tried to produce oil from oil shale cost-effectively, but the basic technology involves strip-mining the oil shale rock, crushing it, heating it, whereupon the gas, oil vapor, and char separate (a process called "retorting"), and then condensing the oil. Few efforts to process oil shale have been economic at a commercial level, though Estonia, Brazil, China, and Russia currently use oil shale in one form or another (one common, and easier, way to use oil shale is as a power source for power stations).
The economics of oil shale remain shrouded in mystery. Estimates range from an effective oil price of $75-$90 per barrel, from RAND, to Shell's estimates that it can make oil shale profitable in Colorado at $30 per barrel. The truth is likely that oil shale, on a small scale, will be expensive, and like oil sands, very energy intensive. If it can achieve commercial scale, it will likely be cost competitive with other forms of exploration, especially if large discoveries can be made.
According to estimates from Exxon Mobil (XOM) and the recently released report of the National Petroleum Council however, oil will continue to make up the overwhelming majority of world liquid fuel supply and the majority of that oil will come from conventional extraction methods. The charts below show estimated world liquid fuel supply and demand[1] through 2030 and estimated sources of oil supply through 2030.[2]
Industry:Oil & Gas Drilling
frazzledgear
Senior Member
- Mar 17, 2008
- 1,479
- 544
- 48
Obama Rebukes Fox News' Ed Henry For Gas Price Question At Press Conference (VIDEO)
WHY do they ALWAYS lie about what the prez says?
What a total lying ass hypocrite that makes Obama then, huh. The guy made no bones about his intent to drive up gas and oil prices before getting elected. Now wants to play the helpless tool? You seriously have to be devoid of critical thinking skills to vote for this guy. But I'm sure he will claim the fact the ONLY economic class to grow under him were the ranks of the poor wasn't his doing either. Or getting more people addicted to government handouts so that we have more people on government handouts than at any time in our history -he must be so proud. The two groups of people Democrats claim are their natural constituents. And he made sure there are lots more of them. He can brag about insuring the highest rate of poverty seen in this country in over 50 years. The only economic class he wanted to grow and did which is a critical part of the radical left wing agenda. Read their own works. Give empty lip service to "helping" the poor while busily pursuing and enacting policies that make more people poor and dependent on handouts. And Obama is good at it along with being a skilled liar. Not a brilliant liar though because a brilliant ine would never have allowed himself to be filmed admitting this is the outcome he meant by "fundamentally changing this country". The words of someone admitting the very bedrock principles of his country were ones he rejected. "Fundamental" actually MEANS something and it doesn't mean "superficial" and it sure as hell doesn't mean getting BACK to our fundamental principles.
If you think THIS is as good as it gets with a President then vote for this guy. end of discussion. But when asked about high gas prices remember he NEVER MENTIONED THE PAIN THIS IS CAUSING PEOPLE JUST TRYING TO LIVE! Not once. The man is an egomaniac in the mold of Chavez. His answer was all about what it did to HIM and how much harder it made it for HIM. I almost threw up listening to him. And that "thrill" Chris Matthews felt running up his leg? It's actually a shudder.
Last edited:
Oil production in gulf is at the same level from 2 years ago. which was before the BP oil spill. maybe you should do a little research and see about all the new leases that have been approved by the Obama administration
U.S. to open up remaining Gulf oil leases - CNN.com
The federal government Thursday announced plans to sell off oil and gas leases on 38 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico seafloor in a new domestic energy push by the Obama administration.
The leases could yield as much as 1 billion barrels of oil and 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the Interior Department estimates. The scheduled sale in June will be the second since the Deepwater Horizon disaster of 2010 when nearly 5 million barrels of crude spewed into the Gulf.
President Barack Obama, who touted plans to develop more U.S. energy resources in his State of the Union address this week, announced the sale Thursday. Speaking at a UPS natural-gas refueling facility in Las Vegas, Obama said he wants to encourage the use of the cleaner-burning fuel as an alternative to gasoline or diesel.
U.S. Sale of Gulf Oil Leases Attracts 241 Bids From 20 Companies - Businessweek
The first lease sale for oil production in the Gulf of Mexico since BP Plc’s spill in 2010 attracted 241 bids from 20 companies, the Interior Department said.
im sure youll try to find someone to say this is all because of the GOP now.
Read the fine print.
These are new leases opening for exploration. It takes at least 9 months to drill to the point you're ready to begin production. Obama is selling the leases to 20 companies (no mention what companies or country) so they should start producing by December if they bought them today. That is if some conservationist doesn't take them to court. It costs about a million to drill a well. Shell paid $4 million to drill in Anwar and after 5 years of work and filing permits the Obama Administration rejected their application.
April 2010 was when the BP oil spill happened in case you forget. A 6 month moratorium has turned into a 2 year ban. Those jobs are gone.
ENERGY IN AMERICA
Energy in America: EPA Rules Force Shell to Abandon Oil Drilling Plans
By Dan Springer
Published April 25, 2011 | FoxNews.com
*
Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.
Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”QUOTE]
so essentially you thought that the moratorium due to the BP oiil spill was bad. the new safety regulation put in place during that time were bad.
why are the oil companies drilling on the 65,000 square miles of leased space they current own the rights to right now?
thanks for quoting an article from april 2011, basically a year ago. not exactly very current. and so Shell made a bad business decision to drill in the arctic. is that the administrations fault? Shell knew the risk and cost when they bid. so now the government has to assume the risk of a private company just to make them more profitable than they already are?
so..... you agree it takes 9 months to bring oil from a new well to production..... so how exactly is drilling more right now this very second going to change gas prices? oil production is at its highest level in 8 years. the demand from china and india is helping to drive prices up. what would you like the president to do? unilaterally fix oil prices? because that would be socialist.....
Next month will be the 2 year anniversary of the BP oil spill and the ban has still not been lifted, and will not be lifted until the Administration says so.
The reason I showed you a story about Shell oil in Anwar from last year is because that is what happens when a US company goes through the process. First they sell them the leases so they can explore. The fees come to millions, and then if any tree-hugger group gets wind of it they have to have hearings and possibly court actions. The article I quoted was just one example. Shell was working on that lease for 5 years and had to abandon drilling. It takes 9 months to get to the point they can start production when they have no outside interference, but as I illustrated it's rarely that easy.
The point is drilling in the United States is a pain in the ass. We can drill anywhere but here. Now do you think it's okay for the Democrats to put our reserves off limits then use everyone else's. Dirty up their lands. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical??
Last edited:
Read the fine print.
These are new leases opening for exploration. It takes at least 9 months to drill to the point you're ready to begin production. Obama is selling the leases to 20 companies (no mention what companies or country) so they should start producing by December if they bought them today. That is if some conservationist doesn't take them to court. It costs about a million to drill a well. Shell paid $4 million to drill in Anwar and after 5 years of work and filing permits the Obama Administration rejected their application.
April 2010 was when the BP oil spill happened in case you forget. A 6 month moratorium has turned into a 2 year ban. Those jobs are gone.
so essentially you thought that the moratorium due to the BP oiil spill was bad. the new safety regulation put in place during that time were bad.
why are the oil companies drilling on the 65,000 square miles of leased space they current own the rights to right now?
thanks for quoting an article from april 2011, basically a year ago. not exactly very current. and so Shell made a bad business decision to drill in the arctic. is that the administrations fault? Shell knew the risk and cost when they bid. so now the government has to assume the risk of a private company just to make them more profitable than they already are?
so..... you agree it takes 9 months to bring oil from a new well to production..... so how exactly is drilling more right now this very second going to change gas prices? oil production is at its highest level in 8 years. the demand from china and india is helping to drive prices up. what would you like the president to do? unilaterally fix oil prices? because that would be socialist.....
Next month will be the 2 year anniversary of the BP oil spill and the ban has still not been lifted, and will not be lifted until the Administration says so.
The reason I showed you a story about Shell oil in Anwar from last year is because that is what happens when a US company goes through the process. First they sell them the leases so they can explore. The fees come to millions, and then if any tree-hugger group gets wind of it they have to have hearings and possibly court actions. The article I quoted was just one example. Shell was working on that lease for 5 years and had to abandon drilling. It takes 9 months to get to the point they can start production when they have on outside interference, but as I illustrated it's rarely that easy.
The point is drilling in the United States is a pain in the ass. We can drill anywhere but here. Now do you think it's okay for the Democrats to put our reserves off limits then use everyone else's. Dirty up their lands. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical??
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,990
- 280
Fox News Explains Why Presidents Can't Control Gas Prices, In 2008 (Video) : TreeHugger
In 2008, to defend George Bush from Democrats' accusations that his policies were raising gas price, Fox News put together a series of video segments explaining why the president can't control the costs at the pump. Too bad it seems to have forgotten all about them.
But Media Matters hasn't (of course). The watchdog group has put together a fantastic video medley of those Bush-era segments, and guess what? They're really good! It's probably the best journalistic stance you will ever see Fox News take, ever: (Via Slate's Moneybox)
FLASHBACK: Fox News On Gas Prices In 2008 | Media Matters for America
In 2008, to defend George Bush from Democrats' accusations that his policies were raising gas price, Fox News put together a series of video segments explaining why the president can't control the costs at the pump. Too bad it seems to have forgotten all about them.
But Media Matters hasn't (of course). The watchdog group has put together a fantastic video medley of those Bush-era segments, and guess what? They're really good! It's probably the best journalistic stance you will ever see Fox News take, ever: (Via Slate's Moneybox)
FLASHBACK: Fox News On Gas Prices In 2008 | Media Matters for America
...from a political perspective, do you think the President of the United States, going into reelection, wants gas prices to go up even higher? Is there anybody sane here @ USMB who thinks that makes a lot of sense?
Yes, Obama miscalculated, and gas prices rose faster and sooner than he expected. Now, he has to find someone to blame, and that will be the evil big oil companies, and oil speculators. Obama has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the truth in not in him. He is attempting to take credit for increased oil production that he had nothing to do with, and reduced demand for oil caused by the continued recession that he wants to blame Bush for. Meanwhile, he has created another big hole for this country to climb out of.
Yes, Obama miscalculated, and gas prices rose faster and sooner than he expected. Now, he has to find someone to blame, and that will be the evil big oil companies, and oil speculators. Obama has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the truth in not in him. He is attempting to take credit for increased oil production that he had nothing to do with, and reduced demand for oil caused by the continued recession that he wants to blame Bush for. Meanwhile, he has created another big hole for this country to climb out of.
Except he said it.
Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket - YouTube
So are you honestly saying he doesn't want energy prices to necessarily skyrocket, despite the fact that he says he clearly does?
Obama was talking about a different plan causing energy costs to “skyrocket.” As the Associated Press noted in fact-checking Palin’s book, Obama was not talking about the cap-and-trade legislation that has since passed in the House when he referred to energy costs “necessarily skyrocket[ting].” When Obama made that statement to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board in January 2008, he was describing a cap-and-trade proposal that would auction off 100 percent of available carbon allowances, and he made no mention at the time of a plan to compensate consumers for potential cost increases. But as PolitiFact.com noted, the Waxman-Markey bill initially would distribute most of the carbon allocations for free and contains substantial provisions to offset costs to consumers, and thus “should reduce costs to consumers.”
Except it was taken totally out of context. Only dittoheads believe such obvious tripe, repeated billions of time - it's the gigantic Pub BS industry...
Palin
http://grist.org/politics/palins-book-spreads-falsehoods-about-clean-energy-legislation
The fact that he was talking about a completely different plan is irrelevant. His plan was to knowingly cause energy prices to skyrocket.
The fact that energy prices have skyrocketed for an alternative reason is completely irrelevant to the fact that this was the desired outcome from the plan.
Bump for thickest skull dittohead idiocy. Even the hypothetical , imaginary plan would have made prices only skyrocket very temporarily IN ORDER to bring down pollution radically. It was an intelectual thought dupes wouldn't understand. The skyrocket quote is total
Pubcrappe...
Last edited:
wow, did you write that with a straight face? the only reason there was a drilling moratorium in the gulf was due to the BP oil spill. once that moratorium ended and new safety regulations were in place, new permits were granted and new leases sold. how is that "years" of stonewalling? a 1 year moratorium? what about the other 65,000 SQ miles of leased space that oil companies are not drilling on?Oil production in gulf is at the same level from 2 years ago. which was before the BP oil spill. maybe you should do a little research and see about all the new leases that have been approved by the Obama administration
U.S. to open up remaining Gulf oil leases - CNN.com
The federal government Thursday announced plans to sell off oil and gas leases on 38 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico seafloor in a new domestic energy push by the Obama administration.
The leases could yield as much as 1 billion barrels of oil and 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the Interior Department estimates. The scheduled sale in June will be the second since the Deepwater Horizon disaster of 2010 when nearly 5 million barrels of crude spewed into the Gulf.
President Barack Obama, who touted plans to develop more U.S. energy resources in his State of the Union address this week, announced the sale Thursday. Speaking at a UPS natural-gas refueling facility in Las Vegas, Obama said he wants to encourage the use of the cleaner-burning fuel as an alternative to gasoline or diesel.
U.S. Sale of Gulf Oil Leases Attracts 241 Bids From 20 Companies - Businessweek
The first lease sale for oil production in the Gulf of Mexico since BP Plcs spill in 2010 attracted 241 bids from 20 companies, the Interior Department said.
im sure youll try to find someone to say this is all because of the GOP now.
It's because this Administration is scared shitless that gas prices will soar over $4 a gallon this summer and THEY will be held responsible because of the years of stonewalling drilling permits that the Department of Energy has done under the leadership of Chu and Barack Obama.
Barry will want to go into the summer looking like he cares about the cost of oil. It's too bad that the permits he's going to allow to go forward "now" won't affect oil production until years down the road. But then again...it's always about doing whatever it takes to get reelected with Obama...he'll give out some permits to make it look like he's not anti-big oil and then if he can get reelected in November, he and Chu will go right back to what they were doing before...pushing the price of gas towards their goal of $6 a gallon.
currently gas is over $4 in both CA and HI. Obama will win both those states handily. funny enough as well, CA has a mandate that by 2020 33% of all energy produced must come from renewable sources (wind, solar, geotherm). this has spawned a new hiring and new businesses in a state that desperately need them. how did this occur, with federal and state subsidies.
California's Solar Program a Big Success | Environment California
Solar Power | California has a quarter of solar jobs - Los Angeles Times
Green Business: A Marketing Lesson from Solar
San Jose: The Fastest-Growing California Solar City in 2012
American Solar Direct Opens Northern California Office - The Business Journals
CaliforniaSolarPanelCompanies.com | Solar Company Reviews
Media - American Solar Direct
Green power surges in Calif. as utilities eye mandate - Governors' Wind Energy Coalition
Renewables mandate energizes industry - Sacramento Business Journal
California Reveals Price It Pays For Renewable Energy - Forbes
So explain to me why a moratorium on shallow water drilling permits was enforced along with the moratorium on deep water drilling permits. Shallow water drillers have almost a perfect safety record. Care to explain the rationale behind the Department of Energy shutting them down? The truth is...this Administration seized the BP spill as an excuse to shut down ALL new drilling permits because they don't like big oil just like they don't like big coal. And the reason I say they stonewalled permits for "years" is that even when they lifted the moratorium they dragged their feet on new permits so badly that the oil exploration companies had to go to Congress and plead for assistance. Don't kid yourself, the Obama Adminstration wants the price of gas to go up...they just don't want it to happen until after November. If Barry gets back in the Oval Office for a second term you better gird your loins, Kiddies because it's going to get ugly out there. He'll have zero incentive to rein in the EPA on new standards for air quality. Expect to see your electricity bills to go through the roof at the same time as $4 a gallon gas becomes the new norm. That means everything you buy will see a bump in costs because those companies will be passing the additional energy costs to them...on to us. All this while we keep devaluing the dollar. By the end of another four years of Barry...people will be longing for the "good old days" of Jimmy Carter.
...from a political perspective, do you think the President of the United States, going into reelection, wants gas prices to go up even higher? Is there anybody sane here @ USMB who thinks that makes a lot of sense?
Yes, Obama miscalculated, and gas prices rose faster and sooner than he expected. Now, he has to find someone to blame, and that will be the evil big oil companies, and oil speculators. Obama has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the truth in not in him. He is attempting to take credit for increased oil production that he had nothing to do with, and reduced demand for oil caused by the continued recession that he wants to blame Bush for. Meanwhile, he has created another big hole for this country to climb out of.
Sure LOL
Oil production in gulf is at the same level from 2 years ago. which was before the BP oil spill. maybe you should do a little research and see about all the new leases that have been approved by the Obama administration
U.S. to open up remaining Gulf oil leases - CNN.com
The federal government Thursday announced plans to sell off oil and gas leases on 38 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico seafloor in a new domestic energy push by the Obama administration.
The leases could yield as much as 1 billion barrels of oil and 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the Interior Department estimates. The scheduled sale in June will be the second since the Deepwater Horizon disaster of 2010 when nearly 5 million barrels of crude spewed into the Gulf.
President Barack Obama, who touted plans to develop more U.S. energy resources in his State of the Union address this week, announced the sale Thursday. Speaking at a UPS natural-gas refueling facility in Las Vegas, Obama said he wants to encourage the use of the cleaner-burning fuel as an alternative to gasoline or diesel.
U.S. Sale of Gulf Oil Leases Attracts 241 Bids From 20 Companies - Businessweek
The first lease sale for oil production in the Gulf of Mexico since BP Plcs spill in 2010 attracted 241 bids from 20 companies, the Interior Department said.
im sure youll try to find someone to say this is all because of the GOP now.
Read the fine print.
These are new leases opening for exploration. It takes at least 9 months to drill to the point you're ready to begin production. Obama is selling the leases to 20 companies (no mention what companies or country) so they should start producing by December if they bought them today. That is if some conservationist doesn't take them to court. It costs about a million to drill a well. Shell paid $4 million to drill in Anwar and after 5 years of work and filing permits the Obama Administration rejected their application.
April 2010 was when the BP oil spill happened in case you forget. A 6 month moratorium has turned into a 2 year ban. Those jobs are gone.
ENERGY IN AMERICA
Energy in America: EPA Rules Force Shell to Abandon Oil Drilling Plans
By Dan Springer
Published April 25, 2011 | FoxNews.com
*
Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPAs Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.
Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. Hes especially frustrated over the appeal boards suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. We think the issues were really not major, Slaiby said, and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.QUOTE]
so essentially you thought that the moratorium due to the BP oiil spill was bad. the new safety regulation put in place during that time were bad.
why are the oil companies drilling on the 65,000 square miles of leased space they current own the rights to right now?
thanks for quoting an article from april 2011, basically a year ago. not exactly very current. and so Shell made a bad business decision to drill in the arctic. is that the administrations fault? Shell knew the risk and cost when they bid. so now the government has to assume the risk of a private company just to make them more profitable than they already are?
so..... you agree it takes 9 months to bring oil from a new well to production..... so how exactly is drilling more right now this very second going to change gas prices? oil production is at its highest level in 8 years. the demand from china and india is helping to drive prices up. what would you like the president to do? unilaterally fix oil prices? because that would be socialist.....
Ah...if Barry and his band of merry progressives hadn't shut down drilling two years ago then we'd be better able to weather a crisis in the Middle East NOW. This ain't rocket science, Sparky...try and keep up.
Fox News Explains Why Presidents Can't Control Gas Prices, In 2008 (Video) : TreeHugger
In 2008, to defend George Bush from Democrats' accusations that his policies were raising gas price, Fox News put together a series of video segments explaining why the president can't control the costs at the pump. Too bad it seems to have forgotten all about them.
But Media Matters hasn't (of course). The watchdog group has put together a fantastic video medley of those Bush-era segments, and guess what? They're really good! It's probably the best journalistic stance you will ever see Fox News take, ever: (Via Slate's Moneybox)
FLASHBACK: Fox News On Gas Prices In 2008 | Media Matters for America
So you think that these journalists took everything into consideration?
They would never imagine that the president would intentionally drive up the price. That's just not in the realm of possibility. In 08' many of these same people would never in their wildest dreams imagine that the President would start taking over private companies like GM and Chrysler ether. They never would imagine that the Democrats would try to institute a Carbon-tax at the gas pump.
Btw, I think it's easier to drive the price up than it is to drive it back down. If Obama gave a speech that he was ready to attack Iran watch what happens to the price of gas.
Syphon
Rookie
- Feb 22, 2012
- 1,449
- 84
- 0
- Banned
- #178
the ban was lifted in Oct 2010.Read the fine print.
These are new leases opening for exploration. It takes at least 9 months to drill to the point you're ready to begin production. Obama is selling the leases to 20 companies (no mention what companies or country) so they should start producing by December if they bought them today. That is if some conservationist doesn't take them to court. It costs about a million to drill a well. Shell paid $4 million to drill in Anwar and after 5 years of work and filing permits the Obama Administration rejected their application.
April 2010 was when the BP oil spill happened in case you forget. A 6 month moratorium has turned into a 2 year ban. Those jobs are gone.
so essentially you thought that the moratorium due to the BP oiil spill was bad. the new safety regulation put in place during that time were bad.
why are the oil companies drilling on the 65,000 square miles of leased space they current own the rights to right now?
thanks for quoting an article from april 2011, basically a year ago. not exactly very current. and so Shell made a bad business decision to drill in the arctic. is that the administrations fault? Shell knew the risk and cost when they bid. so now the government has to assume the risk of a private company just to make them more profitable than they already are?
so..... you agree it takes 9 months to bring oil from a new well to production..... so how exactly is drilling more right now this very second going to change gas prices? oil production is at its highest level in 8 years. the demand from china and india is helping to drive prices up. what would you like the president to do? unilaterally fix oil prices? because that would be socialist.....
Next month will be the 2 year anniversary of the BP oil spill and the ban has still not been lifted, and will not be lifted until the Administration says so.
The reason I showed you a story about Shell oil in Anwar from last year is because that is what happens when a US company goes through the process. First they sell them the leases so they can explore. The fees come to millions, and then if any tree-hugger group gets wind of it they have to have hearings and possibly court actions. The article I quoted was just one example. Shell was working on that lease for 5 years and had to abandon drilling. It takes 9 months to get to the point they can start production when they have no outside interference, but as I illustrated it's rarely that easy.
The point is drilling in the United States is a pain in the ass. We can drill anywhere but here. Now do you think it's okay for the Democrats to put our reserves off limits then use everyone else's. Dirty up their lands. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical??
even Darrell Issa agreed it with:
Obama team lifts Gulf Coast oil drilling moratorium
they have sold new drilling permits and oil production is increasing in the gulf again. the again the oil companies could drill in the other 65,000 sq miles of land they have leases. but apparently do dont read "too good"
FACT SHEET
March 2011
1220 L Street, NW | Washington, DC 20005-4070 American Petroleum Institute
NON-PRODUCING LEASES
The fact is "use it or lose it" already is the law. If companies do not produce oil or gas on leases then the leases must be returned to the government.
•
Companies are required under government leasing regulations to develop a lease expeditiously (between five- and 10-year terms depending on the area) or return it to the government. In general, leases not producing by the end of their term are relinquished back to the government, which can then re-lease them.
•
In addition, companies already pay a rental fee during the pre-production phase of development. Rental fees on leases can now exceed $100 thousand annually on some leases. Rental rates increase in the later years of the lease.to encourage diligent development.
•
Companies invest billions of dollars to acquire and maintain their lease inventories. In addition to rental payments during the pre-production period, companies also pay a bonus bid to acquire leases.
Oil companies holding leases are in the business of finding and producing oil and natural gas, but a lease is only the first step.
•
In many cases, the administration itself is preventing the industry from developing leases by not issuing permits to drill on them. Companies cannot develop existing leases without drilling permits.
Exploratory drilling occurs only when the geological formation shows potential,which is often unknown until after the lease has been purchased and studied.
•
When companies decide to bid on a lease, there may be minimal information available to evaluate the resource potential of that lease. Because of the competitive nature of the domestic oil and gas industry, companies are willing to risk capital to capture leases while speculating on the resource potential these leases may contain.
•
Before drilling an exploratory well, companies may conduct seismic studies—which require permitting—to determine if commercial quantities of hydrocarbons are likely. If they believe commercial quantities exist, they will seek another permit for an exploratory well. Developing a lease can be a complicated process. Detailed planning, permitting timetables and regulatory and safety requirements must be met before development can occur.
•
It is not uncommon for a company to spend $100 million to drill a well and find no oil or gas. Moreover, companies drill more wells that have no oil or gas than wells that actually do.
Production will only occur if resources are found in commercial quantities.
Leases:
March 2011
1220 L Street, NW | Washington, DC 20005-4070 American Petroleum Institute
NON-PRODUCING LEASES
The fact is "use it or lose it" already is the law. If companies do not produce oil or gas on leases then the leases must be returned to the government.
•
Companies are required under government leasing regulations to develop a lease expeditiously (between five- and 10-year terms depending on the area) or return it to the government. In general, leases not producing by the end of their term are relinquished back to the government, which can then re-lease them.
•
In addition, companies already pay a rental fee during the pre-production phase of development. Rental fees on leases can now exceed $100 thousand annually on some leases. Rental rates increase in the later years of the lease.to encourage diligent development.
•
Companies invest billions of dollars to acquire and maintain their lease inventories. In addition to rental payments during the pre-production period, companies also pay a bonus bid to acquire leases.
Oil companies holding leases are in the business of finding and producing oil and natural gas, but a lease is only the first step.
•
In many cases, the administration itself is preventing the industry from developing leases by not issuing permits to drill on them. Companies cannot develop existing leases without drilling permits.
Exploratory drilling occurs only when the geological formation shows potential,which is often unknown until after the lease has been purchased and studied.
•
When companies decide to bid on a lease, there may be minimal information available to evaluate the resource potential of that lease. Because of the competitive nature of the domestic oil and gas industry, companies are willing to risk capital to capture leases while speculating on the resource potential these leases may contain.
•
Before drilling an exploratory well, companies may conduct seismic studies—which require permitting—to determine if commercial quantities of hydrocarbons are likely. If they believe commercial quantities exist, they will seek another permit for an exploratory well. Developing a lease can be a complicated process. Detailed planning, permitting timetables and regulatory and safety requirements must be met before development can occur.
•
It is not uncommon for a company to spend $100 million to drill a well and find no oil or gas. Moreover, companies drill more wells that have no oil or gas than wells that actually do.
Production will only occur if resources are found in commercial quantities.
Leases:
For a time after the BP spill, the drilling moratorium ordered by the Obama administration caused a decline in gulf production, but a reversal has occurred. Forty rigs are drilling in the gulf today compared with 25 a year ago.
BP has five rigs drilling in the gulf, making it one of the most active drillers there. That is the same number BP operated before the accident, and it plans to have three more rigs drilling in the gulf by the end of the year.
The Energy Department recently projected that gulf oil production would expand from its 2011 level of 1.3 million barrels a day, still nearly a quarter of total domestic production, to two million barrels a day by 2020.
Last December, the Obama administration held its first offshore auction since the BP spill, granting leases for more than 20 million acres of federal waters — bigger than West Virginia. The leases are worth $330 million to the federal government and have the potential to produce 400 million barrels of oil.
BP successfully bid for 11 of the 191 available drilling blocks. Environmentalists challenged the auction of exploration rights, so far unsuccessfully, which precedes applications and approvals for actual drilling permits.
By the Obama administration’s accounting, 61 drilling permits for wells in more than 500 feet of water were granted in the 12 months ending Feb. 27, only six fewer than were permitted in the same period in 2009 and 2010 before the BP explosion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/b...rilling-accelerates-as-bp-disaster-fades.html
BP has five rigs drilling in the gulf, making it one of the most active drillers there. That is the same number BP operated before the accident, and it plans to have three more rigs drilling in the gulf by the end of the year.
The Energy Department recently projected that gulf oil production would expand from its 2011 level of 1.3 million barrels a day, still nearly a quarter of total domestic production, to two million barrels a day by 2020.
Last December, the Obama administration held its first offshore auction since the BP spill, granting leases for more than 20 million acres of federal waters — bigger than West Virginia. The leases are worth $330 million to the federal government and have the potential to produce 400 million barrels of oil.
BP successfully bid for 11 of the 191 available drilling blocks. Environmentalists challenged the auction of exploration rights, so far unsuccessfully, which precedes applications and approvals for actual drilling permits.
By the Obama administration’s accounting, 61 drilling permits for wells in more than 500 feet of water were granted in the 12 months ending Feb. 27, only six fewer than were permitted in the same period in 2009 and 2010 before the BP explosion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/b...rilling-accelerates-as-bp-disaster-fades.html
Similar threads
- Replies
- 224
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 114
- Replies
- 36
- Views
- 393
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 100
- Views
- 372
- Replies
- 1K
- Views
- 7K
- Replies
- 215
- Views
- 856
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 108
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8088
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-