Reply With Quote
"Your 38 million acres for the most part is Goat Pasture."
and the few million acres that dubya has unbanned are what?
lol.. this is how that works... and is typical of political double speak bull ...
When they have a block sale... (the government) all the oil companies have to bid on them. These blocks are pre-defined areas of ocean made in a grid.
The oil company then goes and drills in locations on this lease they feel have the potential to be productive.
They can then "hold" a certain number of acres... or a certain area with that platform, but this does not secure the rest of the lease.
Oil is not in most cases under ever square inch of a lease. It is in structures and stratographic traps that are limited in area.
Your 38 million acres for the most part is Goat Pasture.
What a great political talking point you have... "Oil companies don't need any more area to drill on... they already aren't drilling on the 38 million acres where there isn't any oil or there isn't enough for them to make money at $140 a barrel."
Such brilliance... Such simplicity... Such bull ...
"Your 38 million acres for the most part is Goat Pasture."
and the few million acres that dubya has unbanned are what?
Now explain to me why Oil Co's pay to keep these leased Goat Pastures.
You know they have to pay to keep the lease, right? You know they can return these leases to the government?
I'm more inclined to think this is a government sponsored land-grab. And what Bush just signed off on, is more of that.
We wont know until it's drilled.
Do they keep these leases? You sure about that?
Completely unexplored with gems of production that haven't been looked at in 30-40 years of technological advancement...
Have the oilcos "looked at" the 38M acres on and off shore in their hands now, and decided it's all goat pasture? link?
And then there's always shale oil, coming around again for about the 8th time in 100 years. 1 ton of shale rock for 2 weeks of average car gasoline.
dubya says today his unban lease give-away wouldn't help prices at all, except for "psychology". Pretty hard to argue with such a infinitely weak, bull point.
does dubya even know how to pronounce "conservation"?
Umm... no I don't have a link... I'll just have to trust that people on here believe me since I have personal experience dealing with Oil and Gas leases and the government...
Actually no... he said there wouldn't be an IMMEDIATE help which is true... but as demand increases anything we do now is going to help keep prices lower down the road. You wouldn't see a drop in prices probably from future production... but a slower increase.
As to the oil shale thing... Did you have a point about Kerogen or are you just throwing that out there in your rant as an aside?
Why lease a goat pasture?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives on Thursday rejected legislation that would have required energy companies to develop oil and natural gas supplies on federal leases they have held for years or be denied future drilling access on government acres.
So...leave those vast oil reserves where they are?
What vast oil reserves?
And estimated 1.9 to 4.3 billion barrels in ANWR alone. That's more than a drop in the bucket.
Considering our dependence on oil, and the lack of viable fuel alternatives, again I'll ask the question; Why should/would we leave it where it is?
Is it really? According to the United States Energy Information Administration, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case ($0.41 per barrel in 2026 for the low oil resource case and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case). The figures are in 2006 dollars.
Basically, it *IS* a drop in the bucket. Furthermore, OPEC can neutralize any potential price impact by reducing it's oil exports by an equal amount. LINK
On the question of 'why we should we leave it where it is?', well, there's people living in the area. Mostly tribes that feed on herd of animals populating the area. We would be basically taking their land, and possibly killing off their food, for basically no gain whatsoever.
Remember that it's not the government that is going to drill there. All we taxpayers would be getting out of it are cents on the dollar from the land lease. We don't get any price break from the Oil Co's. They sell to the highest bidder. That's just how the global economy works.
What I'd really like to see is the Oil Co's researching/exploiting the lands they have been leasing for years. All that Goat Pasture referenced above. Why keep giving them land if they're not even working on what they already have?
Wasn't Spindletop drilled in a cow pasture?
Okay, but we're not talking about lowering the price of oil, we're talking about getting more oil to market.
Here's a fact, offshore ANWR only; 2 billion barrels of Oil (very conservative estimate of ANWR reserves) would power 1,000,000 cars for 100
years, that is not a drop in the bucket.
Offshore drilling or drilling in general does not ignore those that live along the coastline, deregulation would not/does not give the oilco's carte blanche to run roughshod over those living off the land. The entire coastline is not heavily populated.On the question of 'why we should we leave it where it is?', well, there's people living in the area. Mostly tribes that feed on herd of animals populating the area. We would be basically taking their land, and possibly killing off their food, for basically no gain whatsoever.
.
Agreed, and I understand that, but again, we're not talking dollars and cents, we're talking about getting more oil into the Market.Remember that it's not the government that is going to drill there. All we taxpayers would be getting out of it are cents on the dollar from the land lease. We don't get any price break from the Oil Co's. They sell to the highest bidder. That's just how the global economy works.
Less supply, higher demand = yet higher prices.
More supply, higher demand = higher prices, but not as high.
We aren't going to get away from higher prices at the pump.
Last edited by jochhejaam; 07-15-2008 at 08:05 PM.
You need to study up more...Okay, but we're not talking about lowering the price of oil, we're talking about getting more oil to market.
Here's a fact, offshore ANWR only; 2 billion barrels of Oil (very conservative estimate of ANWR reserves) would power 1,000,000 cars for 100
years, that is not a drop in the bucket.
LinkyMost predictions concerning the amount of oil to the effect it would have on the Alaskan economy have been far too optimistic. USGS estimated approximately 7.668 BBO of recoverable oil in the 1002 area of ANWR using P50 estimates (table 2, figure 3). If drilling were permitted in the ANWR, it would take 10 years for production to start and would only produce 876,000 barrels of oil a day during peak of production. The amount of oil in ANWR would only increase the amount of oil reserve in the world reserve by 0.3% and there is not enough oil to make a slight difference in the world oil price. ANWR would produce about 3.3% of daily consumption of oil in America and we would still be dependent on foreign oil.
Less supply, higher demand -----> In a speculative regulated market = lower demand = lower pricesLess supply, higher demand = yet higher prices.
Okay, I've read that, exactly what part of my post did you refute?
The part where drilling in ANWR will have any effect on domestic energy prices without adapting concurrent conservation methods to reduce or overall demand for oil...
Nope, I specifically stated that I was talking about getting more oil into the Market, nothing about having an effect on domestic energy prices.
I specifically stated this;you didn't refute that at all."Okay, but we're not talking about lowering the price of oil"
Care to try again?
Your typing in circular logic....if the overall goal isn't to reduce the price of energy, then why in the world would we need more oil in the market?Nope, I specifically stated that I was talking about getting more oil into the Market, nothing about having an effect on domestic energy prices.
maybe we can go back to this drawing board.
NEWS Contact: Laurie Cramer ([email protected])
Phone: (202) 326-9316
For Immediate Release: Wednesday, May 29, 2002
http://www.ngsa.org
Destin Dome Announcement by White House
Major Hit to Natural Gas Supply
Washington, D.C. … “The natural gas fields taken off the table today represent enough natural gas to supply a million U.S. families for over 30 years,” said R. Skip Horvath, President of the Natural Gas Supply Association. “The Destin Dome was one of the largest fields in the Gulf of Mexico. We cannot continue to chisel away at America’s own resources and expect to continue to be self sufficient in filling future demand. National energy supply has certainly been handed a setback today.”
Eighty-five percent of natural gas is produced in the U.S., 15 percent is imported from Canada and the remainder is imported as Liquified Natural Gas. The White House announced today the Department of Interior and Justice and private energy companies had reached an agreement for the government to buy back leases sold over ten years ago for offshore drilling off the coast of Florida. The Destin Dome field is located off the shores of Pensacola, Florida and is believed to hold 2.6 Trillion Cubic Feet (Tcf) of natural gas, according to the Department of Energy. The nation consumes almost 22 Tcf of natural gas annually.
Horvath continued, “The natural gas is there; what isn’t there are the Federal policies to support access to this clean burning energy source, the demand for which is increasing faster than any other fossil fuel today.”
NGSA represents integrated and independent companies that produce and market natural gas in the United States. NGSA is actively involved in pursuing regulatory and legislative issues that affect the association’s members. Established in 1965, NGSA encourages expanded use of natural gas and supports regulatory and legislative actions that foster compe ive markets.
NGSA - 02 - 03
http://www.ngsa.org/docs/pressreleas...ent5_29_02.pdf
He....he...Dubya = jochhejaam
So, you admit that your "alledged" refutation was bogus. Thanks, that's what I needed to hear.
And as far as "why we need more oil in the market"?
On a World-wide scale:
Say the World consumes 100,000,000 barrels of oil per day (I don't know what the figure is), if we end up putting 3 trillion barrels of oil into the Market in the future, it will last x number of years and then we run out.
If through technological advances in locating and retrieving the World's oil reserves we can put 6 trillion barrels in the Market ("more oil in the market"). we don't run out nearly as soon, and that gives us more time to develope alternative fuels.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions