The Rape of Iraq's oil.

[boedicca]

Tobacco and hard liquor companies manage to stay in business.

Neither are instantaneously lethal - and many people live long, happy lives enjoying both in moderation. Try again.

 

[red states rule]

Tobacco and hard liquor companies manage to stay in business.

so do abortion clinics - execpt the deaths are immediate and the victims do not have a choice as with tobacco and liquor

 

[Bullypulpit]

1 - INSURGENTS preventing OIL GRAB.
2 - Soldier's job is to INVADE/KILL/PILLAGE. Politicians job is to "PRIVATIZE" iraq's oil for the US and it's close ally.

Don't start slammin' the soldiers. They were, and still are, being told by the civilian leadership that they're going to win this. My brother-in-law just finished a tour in Iraq, and tells me most of them aren't buying the BS anymore. But being the professionals they are, they're doing their jobs as best as they can under the delusions of the Bush Administration.

 

[red states rule]

Don't start slammin' the soldiers. They were, and still are, being told by the civilian leadership that they're going to win this. My brother-in-law just finished a tour in Iraq, and tells me most of them aren't buying the BS anymore. But being the professionals they are, they're doing their jobs as best as they can under the delusions of the Bush Administration.

Why should he slam the troops - Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, Murtha, and the peace niks are doing just fine without him

 

[Bullypulpit]

I know it may be a bit off topic, if you want to lower the price of gas - the answer is simple

Let the oil companies do what they do best. Let them drill, ship, refine, and distribute their product.

Right now the enviro wackos (and some RINIO's) will not allow drilling in Alaska, the Gulf, the East Coast, the West Coast, opposes the expansion or new construction of refineries, so how the hell are to increase our supply and lower the price of gas?

Firstly, America hasn't the proven reserves to drill its way out of its dependence on foreign oil. The US has about 2-3% of world oil reserves, but uses nearly 25% of world oil production. You do the math.

Rather than subsidizing oil companies, as the Bush Administration has done since it came to office, we would be better served by substantially subsidizing investment and research into alternative fuel sources which aren't tied to any geographic region, as oil is. As these new resources came on-line, they would be a boon to the US economy, not a drag as opponents claim.

 

[red states rule]

Firstly, America hasn't the proven reserves to drill its way out of its dependence on foreign oil. The US has about 2-3% of world oil reserves, but uses nearly 25% of world oil production. You do the math.

Rather than subsidizing oil companies, as the Bush Administration has done since it came to office, we would be better served by substantially subsidizing investment and research into alternative fuel sources which aren't tied to any geographic region, as oil is. As these new resources came on-line, they would be a boon to the US economy, not a drag as opponents claim.

The Us has huge reserves of oil, and oil shale - but because of the enviro wackos oil companies can not tap them



U.S. Oil Reserves Get a Big Boost
Chevron-Led Team Discovers Billions of Barrels in Gulf of Mexico's Deep Water

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 6, 2006; Page D01

An oil discovery by Chevron Corp. has bolstered prospects that petroleum companies will be able to tap giant reserves that lie far beneath the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

Oil analysts and company executives said newly released test results from a well 175 miles off the coast of Louisiana indicate that the oil industry will be able to recover well more than 3 billion barrels, and perhaps as much as 15 billion barrels, of oil from a geological area known as the lower tertiary trend, making it the biggest addition to U.S. petroleum reserves in decades. The upper end of the estimate could boost U.S. reserves by 50 percent.

"This looks to be the biggest discovery in the United States in a generation, really since the discovery of Prudhoe Bay 38 years ago," said Daniel Yergin, chairman of the consulting firm Cambridge Energy Research Associates Inc. "There's been a lot of anticipation about what's called the Wilcox formation, and this is the validation of the theory and of the technology," he said, using another name for the area of the Gulf.

Cambridge Energy forecasts that the deep-water area of the Gulf of Mexico will produce 800,000 barrels of oil a day within seven years and account for 11 percent of U.S. oil production. That would not solve the world's energy problem or eliminate U.S. reliance on oil imports, but it would help stabilize U.S. oil production, which has been declining, and cover some of the world's rising demand for petroleum. Prudhoe Bay, in northern Alaska, produced about 1.5 million barrels a day at its peak.

Although oil companies have been exploring the deep-water area of the Gulf of Mexico for the past five years, there have not been any previous production tests from the older tertiary trend, which is made largely of Eocene era sediments more than 35 million years old. Chevron and its partners said the test showed that the oil deposits in the older rock formations were technologically and economically viable.

"The big question for everybody has been whether these rocks would flow and at what rates," said Paul Siegele, head of Chevron's deep-water Gulf exploration unit. "These are older rocks than have been explored before. While everyone was excited about the amount of oil in place, the question was whether it would flow at rates that would be economic, and that's why the test was so important."

Chevron said yesterday that 6,000 barrels a day of crude oil flowed through a test well from the tertiary trend more than 20,000 feet beneath the sea floor in 7,000 feet of water. Chevron's partners noted that the oil flowed from just 40 percent of the more than 350 feet of oil-bearing sediments. Siegele said that the oil was high quality and low in sulfur and that it flowed through an opening less than an inch in diameter. But he said the company would not divulge the exact size of the opening, an important detail for analysts.

Still, John P. Herrlin, an oil analyst with Merrill Lynch & Co., said the production test announcement was "meaningful because it opens a new fairway" in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico oil area, which also includes other geological prospects. Herrlin said the lower tertiary trend alone could hold 3 billion barrels to 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves.

That's a figure Chevron used earlier this year to describe the size of the tertiary trend prospect. In an interview yesterday, Siegele said the new test results reinforced that estimate. But separately, Stephen J. Hadden, senior vice president for exploration and production at Devon Energy Corp., a partner in the Chevron exploration well, said the 3 billion barrel figure was too low. Cambridge Energy's Robert W. Esser said the Eocene or Wilcox sediments could hold 10 billion barrels.

Exploration and production in deep-water areas have become more important to world oil production as production from older fields on or close to shore begins to decline. And technological advances have made it easier to work in the difficult deep-water conditions. Companies are also searching in deeper waters off places such as the west coast of Africa.

But the costs of exploring for oil in deep water far from shore run high, which makes it important to find bigger fields. Chevron's Siegele said the test well, called the Jack No. 2, cost more than $100 million. Devon Energy's Hadden said a production facility in the area could cost between $250 million and $500 million, plus a series of production wells at a cost of $80 million to $120 million each. It isn't clear whether the companies would build a floating platform and put the oil directly into tankers or a platform would connect to pipelines that would run to shore.

"What's really happening is the opening up of a whole new horizon in the ultra-deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and it looks like the upside is very significant," Yergin said. "But it will take time and billions of dollars to get there."

Chevron operates and owns 50 percent of the Jack No. 2 well. Devon Energy and Statoil ASA each own 25 percent of the project.

Hadden said Devon's share of the reserves in the lower tertiary trend could more than double the company's reserve base of about 2 billion barrels of oil and oil equivalents, such as natural gas. It vindicates a strategic decision the company made in 2001 to invest heavily in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico, he said. The company expects to begin production from another deep-water area in the Gulf, called Cascade, in 2009, Hadden said. The company's stock jumped 12.5 percent yesterday to close at $72.14 a share.

Chevron is the company with the most leases in the lower tertiary trend, which Hadden said is a couple of hundred miles long and 50 to 70 miles wide. Devon is next, followed by Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., BP PLC and Royal Dutch Shell PLC.

Last week, in another indication that big reserves lie in deep-water Gulf of Mexico, BP said it had found more than 800 feet of oil-bearing rock in its Kaskida discovery well in the Keathley Canyon area about 75 miles north and west of Chevron's Jack well. It is part of the same geological trend.



Print This ArticleE-Mail This Article
RSS Feed
Permission to Republish

placeholder
» Related Topics & Web Content

Most Viewed Business Articles
Get It All on Paper
Making Sure Opportunity Knocks for Clients
Natural Pet Foods Grab Attention
Subprime Bust Forces Families From Homes
» Top 35 Most Viewed


View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Your washingtonpost.com User ID will be displayed with your comment.
Comments: (Limit 5,000 characters)

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

 

[Gunny]

NOW you sound like an enviro wacko

Of course a business is in business for a profit. Oil companies make about a dime profit on a gallon of gas

Government makes about 50 to 60 cents a gallon in taxes

I sound like an environment whacko because I believe in using resources responsibly? Or because I am not deluding myself into believing a multi-billion dollar industry gives a rat's ass about you or me any longer than it takes it to reach into my wallet?

IMO, you might ought to reassess YOUR values.

Your numbers ar exaggerated to paint a false picture. The profit's higher and the taxes lower. The fact that the government's got its hand in my wallet as well is irrelevant to, and does not diminish the fact that the oil industry does.

 

[red states rule]

I sound like an environment whacko because I believe in using resources responsibly? Or because I am not deluding myself into believing a multi-billion dollar industry gives a rat's ass about you or me any longer than it takes it to reach into my wallet?

IMO, you might ought to reassess YOUR values.

Your numbers ar exaggerated to paint a false picture. The profit's higher and the taxes lower. The fact that the government's got its hand in my wallet as well is irrelevant to, and does not diminish the fact that the oil industry does.

You sound like a enviro wacko when you say corporations do not care if they poison the air and water. Last I checked those employess have to drink the same water and breath the same air

As far as my numbers, I stand by them. The average profit for oil companies is about ten cents. When you include Federal, state, and local taxes it does add up to 50 to 60 cents per gallon

Do a search and you will find the numbers are correct

 

[red states rule]

What do oil companies make on a gallon of gasoline?

A multitude of factors can affect an individual oil company's profit on gasoline sales. However, data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicates that when the average price of unleaded regular peaked at about $3 a gallon in the middle of 2006, major companies were making a profit of about 10 cents a gallon on their U.S. refining and marketing operations. Profitability factors include the efficiency of the firm's refining, distribution and marketing system, as well as its source of raw material. In times of rising oil prices, companies that own and produce a considerable portion of the crude oil used in their refineries may benefit more than other companies that must purchase most or all of their supplies on the open market.

Crude oil generally represents the single greatest cost component of gasoline, which explains why gasoline prices rise and fall so quickly with changes in the world price of crude oil. For example, at ConocoPhillips, crude oil costs make up 85 to 90 percent of the total costs of running its refineries. As an international commodity, crude oil is bought and sold 24 hours a day, so its price is changing constantly. In the matter of a day or two, crude oil prices can move up or down by several dollars, depending upon supply and demand factors.

In general, crude oil accounts for roughly half of gasoline's price, as shown in the graphic. Other price components include refining, distribution (pipelines and tanker trucks) and marketing (service stations and convenience stores). These so-called "downstream" costs have been falling as companies have made operations more efficient. When gasoline reaches the pump, another major factor comes into play – federal, state and local taxes – which average about 20 percent or more of the pump price. The federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, while state and local taxes vary from 8 cents in Alaska to nearly 50 cents per gallon in New York.

http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/other_resources/energyanswers/oil_profits.htm

 

[Gunny]

I am for capitalism and free markets

Libs are for socialism and government control of every aspect of your life

Your response has WHAT exactly to do with the statement it supposedly responds to?

 

[Shattered]

Your response has WHAT exactly to do with the statement it supposedly responds to?

Nothing.

Which is currently the debate we're having in another (Support The Troops) thread.

He's not seeing...

 

[Gunny]

The Us has huge reserves of oil, and oil shale - but because of the enviro wackos oil companies can not tap them



U.S. Oil Reserves Get a Big Boost
Chevron-Led Team Discovers Billions of Barrels in Gulf of Mexico's Deep Water

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 6, 2006; Page D01

An oil discovery by Chevron Corp. has bolstered prospects that petroleum companies will be able to tap giant reserves that lie far beneath the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

Oil analysts and company executives said newly released test results from a well 175 miles off the coast of Louisiana indicate that the oil industry will be able to recover well more than 3 billion barrels, and perhaps as much as 15 billion barrels, of oil from a geological area known as the lower tertiary trend, making it the biggest addition to U.S. petroleum reserves in decades. The upper end of the estimate could boost U.S. reserves by 50 percent.

"This looks to be the biggest discovery in the United States in a generation, really since the discovery of Prudhoe Bay 38 years ago," said Daniel Yergin, chairman of the consulting firm Cambridge Energy Research Associates Inc. "There's been a lot of anticipation about what's called the Wilcox formation, and this is the validation of the theory and of the technology," he said, using another name for the area of the Gulf.

Cambridge Energy forecasts that the deep-water area of the Gulf of Mexico will produce 800,000 barrels of oil a day within seven years and account for 11 percent of U.S. oil production. That would not solve the world's energy problem or eliminate U.S. reliance on oil imports, but it would help stabilize U.S. oil production, which has been declining, and cover some of the world's rising demand for petroleum. Prudhoe Bay, in northern Alaska, produced about 1.5 million barrels a day at its peak.

Although oil companies have been exploring the deep-water area of the Gulf of Mexico for the past five years, there have not been any previous production tests from the older tertiary trend, which is made largely of Eocene era sediments more than 35 million years old. Chevron and its partners said the test showed that the oil deposits in the older rock formations were technologically and economically viable.

"The big question for everybody has been whether these rocks would flow and at what rates," said Paul Siegele, head of Chevron's deep-water Gulf exploration unit. "These are older rocks than have been explored before. While everyone was excited about the amount of oil in place, the question was whether it would flow at rates that would be economic, and that's why the test was so important."

Chevron said yesterday that 6,000 barrels a day of crude oil flowed through a test well from the tertiary trend more than 20,000 feet beneath the sea floor in 7,000 feet of water. Chevron's partners noted that the oil flowed from just 40 percent of the more than 350 feet of oil-bearing sediments. Siegele said that the oil was high quality and low in sulfur and that it flowed through an opening less than an inch in diameter. But he said the company would not divulge the exact size of the opening, an important detail for analysts.

Still, John P. Herrlin, an oil analyst with Merrill Lynch & Co., said the production test announcement was "meaningful because it opens a new fairway" in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico oil area, which also includes other geological prospects. Herrlin said the lower tertiary trend alone could hold 3 billion barrels to 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves.

That's a figure Chevron used earlier this year to describe the size of the tertiary trend prospect. In an interview yesterday, Siegele said the new test results reinforced that estimate. But separately, Stephen J. Hadden, senior vice president for exploration and production at Devon Energy Corp., a partner in the Chevron exploration well, said the 3 billion barrel figure was too low. Cambridge Energy's Robert W. Esser said the Eocene or Wilcox sediments could hold 10 billion barrels.

Exploration and production in deep-water areas have become more important to world oil production as production from older fields on or close to shore begins to decline. And technological advances have made it easier to work in the difficult deep-water conditions. Companies are also searching in deeper waters off places such as the west coast of Africa.

But the costs of exploring for oil in deep water far from shore run high, which makes it important to find bigger fields. Chevron's Siegele said the test well, called the Jack No. 2, cost more than $100 million. Devon Energy's Hadden said a production facility in the area could cost between $250 million and $500 million, plus a series of production wells at a cost of $80 million to $120 million each. It isn't clear whether the companies would build a floating platform and put the oil directly into tankers or a platform would connect to pipelines that would run to shore.

"What's really happening is the opening up of a whole new horizon in the ultra-deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and it looks like the upside is very significant," Yergin said. "But it will take time and billions of dollars to get there."

Chevron operates and owns 50 percent of the Jack No. 2 well. Devon Energy and Statoil ASA each own 25 percent of the project.

Hadden said Devon's share of the reserves in the lower tertiary trend could more than double the company's reserve base of about 2 billion barrels of oil and oil equivalents, such as natural gas. It vindicates a strategic decision the company made in 2001 to invest heavily in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico, he said. The company expects to begin production from another deep-water area in the Gulf, called Cascade, in 2009, Hadden said. The company's stock jumped 12.5 percent yesterday to close at $72.14 a share.

Chevron is the company with the most leases in the lower tertiary trend, which Hadden said is a couple of hundred miles long and 50 to 70 miles wide. Devon is next, followed by Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., BP PLC and Royal Dutch Shell PLC.

Last week, in another indication that big reserves lie in deep-water Gulf of Mexico, BP said it had found more than 800 feet of oil-bearing rock in its Kaskida discovery well in the Keathley Canyon area about 75 miles north and west of Chevron's Jack well. It is part of the same geological trend.



Print This ArticleE-Mail This Article
RSS Feed
Permission to Republish

placeholder
» Related Topics & Web Content

Most Viewed Business Articles
Get It All on Paper
Making Sure Opportunity Knocks for Clients
Natural Pet Foods Grab Attention
Subprime Bust Forces Families From Homes
» Top 35 Most Viewed


View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Your washingtonpost.com User ID will be displayed with your comment.
Comments: (Limit 5,000 characters)

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

And? It's STILL going to get bottlenecked at the refining level. Say for teh sake of argument that this overly-optimistic assessment is even half-true, it will STILL not be enough oil, and we will STILL not have the capability within the US to refine it at teh same rate of use.

Capitalism is just fine. I have no problem with it until the profit comes at the expense of this Nation. This nation would be far-better served to go the route Bully suggests.

And you aren't defending capitalism by defending the oil industry. Yo are defending profiteering at the expense of this Nation's sovereignty.

 

[red states rule]

And? It's STILL going to get bottlenecked at the refining level. Say for teh sake of argument that this overly-optimistic assessment is even half-true, it will STILL not be enough oil, and we will STILL not have the capability within the US to refine it at teh same rate of use.

Capitalism is just fine. I have no problem with it until the profit comes at the expense of this Nation. This nation would be far-better served to go the route Bully suggests.

And you aren't defending capitalism by defending the oil industry. Yo are defending profiteering at the expense of this Nation's sovereignty.

So we should make it EASIER for the oil companies to build/expand refineries

So how am I defending profiteering when the oil makes makes a dime and the government makes 50 cents on a gallon? The gouging is coming from the government not the oil companies

 

[Gunny]

You sound like a enviro wacko when you say corporations do not care if they poison the air and water. Last I checked those employess have to drink the same water and breath the same air

As far as my numbers, I stand by them. The average profit for oil companies is about ten cents. When you include Federal, state, and local taxes it does add up to 50 to 60 cents per gallon

Do a search and you will find the numbers are correct

You are only deluding yourself if you think these oil companies give a rat's ass about the air and/or water. All that matters to them is bottom-line profit. Nothing enviro whacko about that. Seeing short-sighted corporate greed for what it is has nothing to do with it.

 

[Gunny]

Nothing.

Which is currently the debate we're having in another (Support The Troops) thread.

He's not seeing...

Say it isn't so ......

 

[red states rule]

You are only deluding yourself if you think these oil companies give a rat's ass about the air and/or water. All that matters to them is bottom-line profit. Nothing enviro whacko about that. Seeing short-sighted corporate greed for what it is has nothing to do with it.

Your enviro wacko traits are coming to the surface. Yes, evil corporations want to poion the air and water, kill millions of their customers all for the bottom line profiit

If corporate greed adds only ten cents to a gallon of gas - I will take it

 

[Shattered]

Whoops.. Not the Support The Troops thread.. Troops Want To Come Home..

(See, RSR? I can admit when I've made a mistake - it's easy. Try it)

 

[red states rule]

Whoops.. Not the Support The Troops thread.. Troops Want To Come Home..

(See, RSR? I can admit when I've made a mistake - it's easy. Try it)

When I make a mistake I will admit it

 

[Gunny]

So we should make it EASIER for the oil companies to build/expand refineries

So how am I defending profiteering when the oil makes makes a dime and the government makes 50 cents on a gallon? The gouging is coming from the government not the oil companies

Wrong. We should get off our dependence on fossil fuels. What part of "it's over" aren't you getting?

Had the government gotten all over this in the 70's during our first oil crisis, we'd be 30+ years down the road to a solution. Instead, the topic gets lip service and w're not a whole lot closer to a solution now than we were then.

And allowing the oil industry to carte blanche rape the land is about as bullshit an anser as there is.

We will probably NEVER get off fossil fuels completely. It is a finite resource. The less we use as our primary fuel for transportation, the more we have for secondary use, and the longer it will last.

 

[red states rule]

Wrong. We should get off our dependence on fossil fuels. What part of "it's over" aren't you getting?

Had the government gotten all over this in the 70's during our first oil crisis, we'd be 30+ years down the road to a solution. Instead, the topic gets lip service and w're not a whole lot closer to a solution now than we were then.

And allowing the oil industry to carte blanche rape the land is about as bullshit an anser as there is.

We will probably NEVER get off fossil fuels completely. It is a finite resource. The less we use as our primary fuel for transportation, the more we have for secondary use, and the longer it will last.

So the answer to is let the government do the work. When their is sufficient demand from the public some company will step forward and fill the demand

As the oil companies improve their technology they are able to tap oil that they could not years ago

Oil companies do alot of work for only a ten cent profit per gallon - yet they are held in contempt

No wonder Exxon's plans for oil drilling is outside the US - why put up with all the bullshit?