Ravi
Diamond Member
Exactly Care. They've probably slowed down drilling world wide already. On thing the GOP fails to tell its followers is that the oil companies aren't loyal to consumers, they are loyal to profits.
Gas $1.55 a gallon
- Thread starter Chris
- Start date
Andrew2382
Gold Member
- Oct 1, 2008
- 3,994
- 551
- 153
But oil producers say the Democrats' call to “require” companies to drill on the 68 million acres they've already leased is not honest.
In fact, oil producers must already meet government standards for producing oil on leases, said a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute (API), a trade organization that represents America’s oil and natural gas industry.
The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management grants leases to oil companies with the requirement that the companies produce oil from the land within five to 10 years, depending on the stipulations of the lease, said Karen Matusic, media relations manager for the API.
Moreover, the oil companies pay billions of dollars for these leases, she said, with no guarantee that oil will be found in the leased areas.
“In effect, those leases are a right to explore,” Matusic said.
Matusic rejected the notion that oil companies are sitting on the land and not drilling because they want prices to rise, as Democrats have suggested. The oil companies are investing billions of dollars in the leased lands, she said, and “the last thing you want to do is sit on potential oil production or natural gas production.”
“If they aren’t being developed as fast as some in Congress would like them to be, the reason mainly has to do with geology, or the reality that it takes a long time to develop these leases, depending on where they are, and there is no guarantee that they have oil and gas on them,” she said.
Michael Morris, a petroleum markets expert at the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the Energy Department, said drilling on the 68 million acres already leased would contribute little to the domestic oil supply.
If there was much more oil to be found, the oil companies would be drilling for it, he said, since it is in their best interest to obtain more oil.
“That’s pretty much tapped out,” he said of the 68 million acres. “And they’ve done seismic surveys of those areas, and they haven’t found much.”
On Aug. 6, House Republican Leader John Boehner issued an "alert," accusing "desperate Democrats" of peddling "myths" and taking "liberties" with the facts about domestic oil drilling and the Republicans' energy plan.
He said one of those "myths" involves the Democrats' "use it or lose it" policy for the 68 million acres where oil companies currently hold leases but are not drilling.
"The fact is, the so-called “use it or lose it” rule is already the law of the land, and Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) should know that because they voted for it all the way back in 1992," Boehner said.
He explained: "When an energy company gets a lease, there is no guarantee that there is oil or natural gas present under the leased lands. If oil is present, exploration, siting, and development can take up to a decade before any new energy is produced. So the land Democrats are talking about either has no recoverable energy resources, those resources are currently being developed, or they have already been developed. The entire process can take years."
CNSNews.com - Oil Leases on ‘68 Million Acres’ No Guarantee of Oil, Experts Say
Just because trhey have a lease doesn't mean there is a plethora of oil there
In fact, oil producers must already meet government standards for producing oil on leases, said a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute (API), a trade organization that represents America’s oil and natural gas industry.
The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management grants leases to oil companies with the requirement that the companies produce oil from the land within five to 10 years, depending on the stipulations of the lease, said Karen Matusic, media relations manager for the API.
Moreover, the oil companies pay billions of dollars for these leases, she said, with no guarantee that oil will be found in the leased areas.
“In effect, those leases are a right to explore,” Matusic said.
Matusic rejected the notion that oil companies are sitting on the land and not drilling because they want prices to rise, as Democrats have suggested. The oil companies are investing billions of dollars in the leased lands, she said, and “the last thing you want to do is sit on potential oil production or natural gas production.”
“If they aren’t being developed as fast as some in Congress would like them to be, the reason mainly has to do with geology, or the reality that it takes a long time to develop these leases, depending on where they are, and there is no guarantee that they have oil and gas on them,” she said.
Michael Morris, a petroleum markets expert at the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the Energy Department, said drilling on the 68 million acres already leased would contribute little to the domestic oil supply.
If there was much more oil to be found, the oil companies would be drilling for it, he said, since it is in their best interest to obtain more oil.
“That’s pretty much tapped out,” he said of the 68 million acres. “And they’ve done seismic surveys of those areas, and they haven’t found much.”
On Aug. 6, House Republican Leader John Boehner issued an "alert," accusing "desperate Democrats" of peddling "myths" and taking "liberties" with the facts about domestic oil drilling and the Republicans' energy plan.
He said one of those "myths" involves the Democrats' "use it or lose it" policy for the 68 million acres where oil companies currently hold leases but are not drilling.
"The fact is, the so-called “use it or lose it” rule is already the law of the land, and Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) should know that because they voted for it all the way back in 1992," Boehner said.
He explained: "When an energy company gets a lease, there is no guarantee that there is oil or natural gas present under the leased lands. If oil is present, exploration, siting, and development can take up to a decade before any new energy is produced. So the land Democrats are talking about either has no recoverable energy resources, those resources are currently being developed, or they have already been developed. The entire process can take years."
CNSNews.com - Oil Leases on ‘68 Million Acres’ No Guarantee of Oil, Experts Say
Just because trhey have a lease doesn't mean there is a plethora of oil there
Tech_Esq
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Somebody needs to be "told" that? If that's news to somebody, they should have a minder to make sure they don't get hold of any sharp objects.
in bold, find a couple of things that stood out in this article andrew....
i'm heading out for a walk Andrew, i will see if you responded when i get back...
care
i'm heading out for a walk Andrew, i will see if you responded when i get back...
care
Andrew2382
Gold Member
- Oct 1, 2008
- 3,994
- 551
- 153
are they drilling on it or are they not?
this is a little bit of trying to baffle us with her bullshit type thing....
first-all the land being leased for drilling has a usgs survey showing that the land more than likely has retrievable oil....with estimates of how much oil and what type of beds they are more than likely in....the same usgs reports that tells us and the oil companies how much in oil reserves lie beneath the gulf of mexico, in shale reserves mid country, and stuff like that....
so, her indicating that it is merely a ''crap shoot'' is a bit deceiving....Can you see how i can come to this conclusion? If i had not spent some time googling this a while back, i would not have know about the USGS and what they did.... and how our estimated reserves and leased land comes about...
second- I just ask myself, "Do I really THINK that the oil companies would spend millions let alone billions on leases, if they did not know that these leases were worth more than what they paid for them....?" These are business people, paid to make profitable business decisions for their stock holders and i just can't imagine them doing such, spending billions in bottom line profit, without knowing what they were doing.
Oil companies acquire leases in the expectation that some of them contain sufficient oil and gas to cover the total costs. Yet it takes years to move through federal permitting, exploration and development. The U.S. Minerals Management Service notes that only one of three wells results in a discovery of oil that can be recovered economically. In deeper water, it’s one of five. All this involves huge risks, capital investment – and time.
When they acquire these leases, its not as if they can cherry pick. Let's say there is a spot of land where theyknow ha soil they can drill, and tis maybe 30 acres. Well, to lease those 30 acres they have to lease the land that comes in the plot of 15000 acres. So for those 30 acres of recoverable oil, you have 14970 acres that has very little oil or none at all. A lot of these places where there is oil, the technology doesn;t exist to make it cost efficent to drill that deep down or an even bigger problem is when they get ready to drill, enviormentalists slap every law suit known to man on the oil companies to prevent it.
Also, Shell has spent million if not billions of dollars in shale technology. Yet, they are threatning to stop their in-sitsu facility because there is no light at the end of the tunnel from the government. We have more oil in the mid west in Oil-shale then the whole middle east combined.
If the oil companies would make more profit by keeping this oil OFF THE MARKET, than they would by spending millions on leases and millions/billions to drill for new oil, then i believe they would keep the leases and also not drill on them....
whatever makes them more money overall, in short and long terms is what i believe they will do.
What would make them more money is being able to get the oil from lands they and business partners of theirs control and develop. Mobil/Exxon only controls about 1% of the worlds oil. It would be much more cost effiecent if they can get the oil from domestic sources.
If they knew that it would take a long time to develop these leases THEN they SHOULD NOT have signed the leases under the terms that they produce oil in 10 years or lose them and should have renegotiated for 15 years instead....they pay the best negotiaters in the world to do this job for them, make these knew leases, they can certainly have the leases favor the circumstances and themselves.
She's playing to an ignorant audience and not people that have worked for corporations or any business imo.
That makes sense, however it doesn't work like that. These contracts strictly say 10 years and the leases go back on the government. When they lease it, the oil companies then go do all the research, and see where all the oil is.
Go back to your USGS reports and look at where the majority of the oil is, it's on lands prohibited to be drilled on.
Then why did they spend "billions" to lease them? Just does not make any sense, and if they are not going to produce much, then why not give up these leases, so we can lease them to some other enthusiastic oil company that does want to find and drill for the oil there?
No oil company can drill on them, once those leases go up, noone will pick it up unless a new technology coems along for deep cost efficent drilling for a small amoun tof oil.
Like i said, if it was in their best interest to drill for oil, then they would, but since IT IS NOT in their best interest to do it, then they won't....like if they would make more money by keeping oil OFF THE MARKET, then it behooves them to hold the leases, and NOT DRILL....so he aint lying by saying what he said....it was vague enough to cover both...
It's not in their best interest tho, look at Shell and their Insitsu factory. They can make a profit with oil at 30 bucks a barrel, and the tech is at the beggining stages. Plus if oil was drilled here companies can then sell oil to our allies so they don't have tobuy from the middle east as well.
What did the USGS reports say to make them want to lease this land in the first place and if they have been tapped out, then by whom? And if they have nothing on them then GIVE UP THE LEASES, so we can offer this land to other people, other smaller oil companies that would be happy with the oil left on them?
This is what the Dems wanted, for them to give up their leases if they were not going to do any drilling on them.
The majority of these leaases are in DEEP water, which makes it a very risky investment. Of course the oil companies will hold the leases it makes business sense for them to lock it down. But, its very risky, in case the oil bubble popped and they were stuck with operating a deep water rig.
With oil at 70-100 bucks a barrel, it's profitable for them to run these deep water rigs, with oil at 40 bucks like it would have been a bad investment. All the oil which makes it profitable for everyone is closer to shore and that is where the goverment won't allow drilling.
yes, there was already a law that says use it or lose it in 10 years, but the Dems wanted them to lose it, in a shorter period of time IF AND ONLY IF, it was SHOWN that the oil companies had done NO RESEARCH in to the land region and made NO EFFORT to even EXPLORE THE LAND to even see if the oil is under there.... or a possibility of being under there....
so if the oil companies did do any kind of EXPLORING before 5 years then they would keep their lease thru to the 10 years...
Dems were claiming, if memory serves that these companies had not spent a penny exploring some of their leases, going on 5-8 years and exploration of oil had not even been strated yet...so it appears that the oil companies won't be doing any either if they hadn't in the first 5 years of having the leases
Believe me, with oil at $130 per barrel, they would drill on those lands if it made sense to do so! No, not all oil and gas leases are “being used”, because not all of them have production-worthy quantities of oil or gas. Lots of people have property that is not being used, but government doesn’t use it as an excuse to take it away, or to forbid the owners from buying other property.
First, a company may lease property, but never have the funds to properly explore it or drill an exploratory well. Second, after paying for further tests (such as seismic), they often decide the lease isn’t worth the high, high costs of drilling after all. Or they may hold onto the lease for years until either higher oil prices or new technology makes it feasible to drill. Third, a company may lease property but drill on another tract (which drains a “pool” that covers multiple leased tracts), so perhaps they’re counting it as “not used” if no well is sunk on that particular piece of property. Fourth, they may try to drill and be blocked by government bureaucrats, environmental lawsuits, etc.
Finally, not all acres are alike. Some have lots of oil. Others have virtually known. Saying theyÂ’re not drilling for oil everywhere is like faulting them for not digging a gold mine on every acre.
Time to go sit in traffic
this is a little bit of trying to baffle us with her bullshit type thing....
first-all the land being leased for drilling has a usgs survey showing that the land more than likely has retrievable oil....with estimates of how much oil and what type of beds they are more than likely in....the same usgs reports that tells us and the oil companies how much in oil reserves lie beneath the gulf of mexico, in shale reserves mid country, and stuff like that....
so, her indicating that it is merely a ''crap shoot'' is a bit deceiving....Can you see how i can come to this conclusion? If i had not spent some time googling this a while back, i would not have know about the USGS and what they did.... and how our estimated reserves and leased land comes about...
second- I just ask myself, "Do I really THINK that the oil companies would spend millions let alone billions on leases, if they did not know that these leases were worth more than what they paid for them....?" These are business people, paid to make profitable business decisions for their stock holders and i just can't imagine them doing such, spending billions in bottom line profit, without knowing what they were doing.
Oil companies acquire leases in the expectation that some of them contain sufficient oil and gas to cover the total costs. Yet it takes years to move through federal permitting, exploration and development. The U.S. Minerals Management Service notes that only one of three wells results in a discovery of oil that can be recovered economically. In deeper water, it’s one of five. All this involves huge risks, capital investment – and time.
When they acquire these leases, its not as if they can cherry pick. Let's say there is a spot of land where theyknow ha soil they can drill, and tis maybe 30 acres. Well, to lease those 30 acres they have to lease the land that comes in the plot of 15000 acres. So for those 30 acres of recoverable oil, you have 14970 acres that has very little oil or none at all. A lot of these places where there is oil, the technology doesn;t exist to make it cost efficent to drill that deep down or an even bigger problem is when they get ready to drill, enviormentalists slap every law suit known to man on the oil companies to prevent it.
Also, Shell has spent million if not billions of dollars in shale technology. Yet, they are threatning to stop their in-sitsu facility because there is no light at the end of the tunnel from the government. We have more oil in the mid west in Oil-shale then the whole middle east combined.
If the oil companies would make more profit by keeping this oil OFF THE MARKET, than they would by spending millions on leases and millions/billions to drill for new oil, then i believe they would keep the leases and also not drill on them....
whatever makes them more money overall, in short and long terms is what i believe they will do.
What would make them more money is being able to get the oil from lands they and business partners of theirs control and develop. Mobil/Exxon only controls about 1% of the worlds oil. It would be much more cost effiecent if they can get the oil from domestic sources.
If they knew that it would take a long time to develop these leases THEN they SHOULD NOT have signed the leases under the terms that they produce oil in 10 years or lose them and should have renegotiated for 15 years instead....they pay the best negotiaters in the world to do this job for them, make these knew leases, they can certainly have the leases favor the circumstances and themselves.
She's playing to an ignorant audience and not people that have worked for corporations or any business imo.
That makes sense, however it doesn't work like that. These contracts strictly say 10 years and the leases go back on the government. When they lease it, the oil companies then go do all the research, and see where all the oil is.
Go back to your USGS reports and look at where the majority of the oil is, it's on lands prohibited to be drilled on.
Then why did they spend "billions" to lease them? Just does not make any sense, and if they are not going to produce much, then why not give up these leases, so we can lease them to some other enthusiastic oil company that does want to find and drill for the oil there?
No oil company can drill on them, once those leases go up, noone will pick it up unless a new technology coems along for deep cost efficent drilling for a small amoun tof oil.
Like i said, if it was in their best interest to drill for oil, then they would, but since IT IS NOT in their best interest to do it, then they won't....like if they would make more money by keeping oil OFF THE MARKET, then it behooves them to hold the leases, and NOT DRILL....so he aint lying by saying what he said....it was vague enough to cover both...
It's not in their best interest tho, look at Shell and their Insitsu factory. They can make a profit with oil at 30 bucks a barrel, and the tech is at the beggining stages. Plus if oil was drilled here companies can then sell oil to our allies so they don't have tobuy from the middle east as well.
What did the USGS reports say to make them want to lease this land in the first place and if they have been tapped out, then by whom? And if they have nothing on them then GIVE UP THE LEASES, so we can offer this land to other people, other smaller oil companies that would be happy with the oil left on them?
This is what the Dems wanted, for them to give up their leases if they were not going to do any drilling on them.
The majority of these leaases are in DEEP water, which makes it a very risky investment. Of course the oil companies will hold the leases it makes business sense for them to lock it down. But, its very risky, in case the oil bubble popped and they were stuck with operating a deep water rig.
With oil at 70-100 bucks a barrel, it's profitable for them to run these deep water rigs, with oil at 40 bucks like it would have been a bad investment. All the oil which makes it profitable for everyone is closer to shore and that is where the goverment won't allow drilling.
yes, there was already a law that says use it or lose it in 10 years, but the Dems wanted them to lose it, in a shorter period of time IF AND ONLY IF, it was SHOWN that the oil companies had done NO RESEARCH in to the land region and made NO EFFORT to even EXPLORE THE LAND to even see if the oil is under there.... or a possibility of being under there....
so if the oil companies did do any kind of EXPLORING before 5 years then they would keep their lease thru to the 10 years...
Dems were claiming, if memory serves that these companies had not spent a penny exploring some of their leases, going on 5-8 years and exploration of oil had not even been strated yet...so it appears that the oil companies won't be doing any either if they hadn't in the first 5 years of having the leases
Believe me, with oil at $130 per barrel, they would drill on those lands if it made sense to do so! No, not all oil and gas leases are “being used”, because not all of them have production-worthy quantities of oil or gas. Lots of people have property that is not being used, but government doesn’t use it as an excuse to take it away, or to forbid the owners from buying other property.
First, a company may lease property, but never have the funds to properly explore it or drill an exploratory well. Second, after paying for further tests (such as seismic), they often decide the lease isn’t worth the high, high costs of drilling after all. Or they may hold onto the lease for years until either higher oil prices or new technology makes it feasible to drill. Third, a company may lease property but drill on another tract (which drains a “pool” that covers multiple leased tracts), so perhaps they’re counting it as “not used” if no well is sunk on that particular piece of property. Fourth, they may try to drill and be blocked by government bureaucrats, environmental lawsuits, etc.
Finally, not all acres are alike. Some have lots of oil. Others have virtually known. Saying theyÂ’re not drilling for oil everywhere is like faulting them for not digging a gold mine on every acre.
Time to go sit in traffic
ABikerSailor
Diamond Member
The thing that I hope DOES NOT happen is that all the people who have been researching alternative energy stop because of cheap gas.
We should have started to pursue alternative energy after the first gas crisis in the 70's. We kinda saw the last one coming a few years back, but we were lulled into a false sense of security, so we did nothing.
Third strike and you're out. Hopefully this time they won't let alternative energy and more viable sources of fuel go by the wayside again.
We should have started to pursue alternative energy after the first gas crisis in the 70's. We kinda saw the last one coming a few years back, but we were lulled into a false sense of security, so we did nothing.
Third strike and you're out. Hopefully this time they won't let alternative energy and more viable sources of fuel go by the wayside again.
Jon
The CPA
That pisses me off. Rogers and Bentonville are 20 cents cheaper than Fayetteville, and we're 20 miles away.
I suspect a Walmart conspiracy.
bk1983
Off too Kuwait..
- Oct 17, 2008
- 1,431
- 109
- 48
It's becasue there's no demand for it right now-----ya right !
Where exactly did you go to school? Economics must not be
your strength, the drop in demand and consumption are the EXACT
reasons the price has dropped. Ask any economist and they will tell
you the same, their is no doubt or speculation to the reason, any one with
two cents understands what caused the price drop.
That imaginary drilling did the trick. Bush senior was right, voodoo economics extends far and wide. And most would have paid the price had it stays right where it was, economics often make zero sense. Theories go out the windows and Monday morning quarterbacks abound.
Last edited:
bk,
the Speculators jumped ship.
this WAS NOT all about a comparable drop in oil demand with drop in prices, which i believe is what dillo was saying.
just as the Speculators jumped ship in the housing/mortgage derivatives crisis going on now....
alot of the drop, is the speculators, the ''gamblers'' involved in the Wall Street aspect of it, getting ''out'' while they were still ahead....type thing.
worldwide oil demand has dropped LESS THAN 10%, BUT oil PRICES have fallen more than 75% since July....when it was $140 a barrel!
care
when the market crashed, a lot of the "speculators" lost their reserves of cash
they no longer had the mong to risk in specualtion
makes sense!
they did a good deal of this ahead of the crash....oil's been falling bigtime leaps downward since july....
but these dudes are making their money on speculating on the future and they saw this tradgedy/crisis before we did...so they began jumping ship earlier than when the crash was evident to us imo...
Last edited:
actually, i'd say they didnt see it coming, otherwise they would still be playing the oil speculation market
i'd say they lost a bunch in the crash
Last edited:
There you go.
There are real supply/demand fundmentals that effect the price of oil, and then on top of that there is the froth of speculation which can ALSO effect the level of prices.
We are now rather like people who bought a latte and watched the bubbles on top pop over time only to discover the REAL level of coffee in the cup was half what it was when the bubbles were still there.
demand didnt drop THAT much
dilloduck
Diamond Member
It sucks to pay for the bubbles that SPECULATORS could afford to create.
true
then in 5-10 years we'll get hit with another boom and the same morons will say "but it will take 10 to 15 years for that to help"
just like they do now
Quote:
demand didnt drop THAT muchOriginally Posted by editec
There you go.
There are real supply/demand fundmentals that effect the price of oil, and then on top of that there is the froth of speculation which can ALSO effect the level of prices.
We are now rather like people who bought a latte and watched the bubbles on top pop over time only to discover the REAL level of coffee in the cup was half what it was when the bubbles were still there.
Yeah, that was sort of my point.
That there is a component of supply demand built into the system, but that speculators tend to exacerbate the price swings.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Russia Remade Its Economy for War, but It’s Come at a Huge Cost - The New York Times- Started by peacefan
- Replies: 0
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
Like him or hate him...Trump is doing a pretty good job at taking over the world.
- Latest: MostBoringManInTheWorld
