Author Topic: Why no drilling for oil?  (Read 19982 times)

Racehorse

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 829
Re: Why no drilling for oil?
« Reply #75 on: August 13, 2008, 10:51:50 AM »
Why arent the oil companies drilling on the land they already have leased? 

From what I understand, it's that the government granted them leases and they know there's oil there, but the government won't let them drill to extract it.

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,538
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Why no drilling for oil?
« Reply #76 on: August 13, 2008, 10:54:02 AM »
There may well be oil on the land grants that the government has given these companies.

The big question is...

Is it extractable in any feasible manner?
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Why no drilling for oil?
« Reply #77 on: August 13, 2008, 11:16:39 AM »

Quote from: Canard
Why arent the oil companies drilling on the land they already have leased? 



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102145.html?sub=AR

According to the MMS, there were 7,457 active leases as of June 8. Of those, only 1,877 were classified as "producing." As we pointed out in a previous editorial, the five leases that have made up the Shell Perdido project off Galveston since 1996 are not classified as producing. Only when it starts pumping the equivalent of an estimated 130,000 barrels of oil a day at the end of the decade will it be deemed "active." Since 1996, Shell has paid rent on the leases; filed and had approved numerous reports with the MMS, including an environmentally sensitive resource development plan and an oil spill recovery plan that is subject to unannounced practice runs by the MMS; drilled several wells to explore the area at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars; and started constructing the necessary infrastructure to bring the oil to market. The notion that oil companies are just sitting on oil leases is a myth. With oil prices still above $100 a barrel, that charge never made sense.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Drill, drill, drill
« Reply #78 on: August 13, 2008, 11:22:30 AM »
The following is pretty much my line of thinking, especially the boldface.




http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGYyNGYyNWY3NWNmYzRlMzE2ZWZhODNjZWQwNDgzNjc=

McCain Should Link Tsar Putin with Drill, Drill, Drill   [Larry Kudlow]

Will John McCain turn Tsar Putins invasion of Georgia into a drill, drill, drill issue? He should. It will throw Democrats even more on the defensive  especially Sen. Obama whose weak response to Putins neo-Soviet actions have already put him way behind the eight ball on Russia.

McCains responses have been superb. And President Bush today adopted many of them  in particular the warnings on world trade, the G8 (G7?), and a Truman-like airlift of humanitarian assistance relief. Even sending Condi Rice over there and putting SecDef Bob Gates into play.

McCain has been appropriately tough all along. And this Putin ploy will resonate with voters much more than Beltway pundits believe.

But global strategist Thomas Barnett has the energy angle on Russias invasion of Georgia exactly right. He says, Now we all have clarity about the nasty nature of Putins Russia, and this gives us clarity on the need to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He asks: Why would the U.S. want to expose the American economy to the potential risk of being held hostage by a couple of oil pipelines that run through the old Soviet empire? He goes on to say, Its all-of-the-above time, gang  domestic drilling, nukes, concentrated solar, deep geothermal, clean coal, and whatever else Silicon Valley and heroic capitalists everywhere can dream up as we conduct a market-driven transition to a post-hydrocarbon economy. (Hat tip to Jimmy Pethokoukis.)

Barnett is exactly right. I simply call it drill, drill, drill  total deregulation and decontrol of the great American energy sector. Unleash all manner of energy for an America First energy policy that not only will fuel our economy but will create millions of high-paying jobs in the future.

This is where the Tsar Putin warning should take us this political season. Its another huge Republican opportunity, led by McCain, to merge Obamas naïveté and inexperience on national security with his nutty reliance on the enviromaniacs of the left who still control the Democrats.

I notice the Intrade prediction market, which downgraded the end-the-drilling-ban contract to 40 percent yesterday, has popped up the probability of that contract to 50 percent today. I also notice this mornings Wall Street Journal story that says conservative Republicans in the Senate are not happy with the Gang of 10 drilling compromise. They shouldnt be happy with it. All thats necessary is 41 votes to stop a budget spending bill that is likely to contain another one-year extension of the drilling moratorium. That would mean the moratorium is dead on Oct. 1; it expires Sept. 30. This will be the closest thing to an up-or-down vote on drilling.

Do we really want OPEC, Hugo Chavez, and Tsar Putin to control our energy prices? Or will we be brave enough to seize energy independence?

McCain can really lead on this issue.



"Drill, baby, drill.  Drill like there's no friggin' tomorrow."  [<--That's about half right--jfruser]

Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

41magsnub

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,579
  • Don't make me assume my ultimate form!
Re: Why no drilling for oil?
« Reply #79 on: August 13, 2008, 11:24:46 AM »
I instinctively cringe when I hear anybody say "total energy deregulation" after the Montana Power fiasco.  Deregulation certainly did not do our state any favors.

quatin

  • New Member
  • Posts: 10
Re: Why no drilling for oil?
« Reply #80 on: August 13, 2008, 11:44:29 AM »
Quote
Cool.

I'm all for opening up Texas, Louisiana, AND Alaska.

Nice side slip on my statement, as well.

I said, very distinctly, if ALL oil were to go 'POOF' tomorrow, all across the world, the results would be quite catastrophic.

I did NOT say that there will be catastrophic results if we don't drill in Alasak.

Although I can see how in your indignation you missed that subtle, yet important, distinction...  rolleyes

Then what were you addressing with that statement? Were you just adding that to make your post more ominous so when you did talk about Alaska oil we should all be in chicken little mode? Go ahead, start proposing drilling in the wild life preserves first what do the sandle wearing hippies in Ducks Unlimited know.

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,538
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Why no drilling for oil?
« Reply #81 on: August 13, 2008, 12:08:59 PM »
I was addressing YOUR post.

"You can make non-petroleum based plastics, there are non-petroleum based jet fuel, there are even non-petroleum based vehicle fuels. Don't tell me we are so dependent on petroleum that when the world supply runs out we're suddenly back into the stone age."

Yes, we ARE so dependent on petroleum that if it were to run out tomorrow there would be catastrophic consequences.

Would we revert to the stone age?

Of course not.

We'd revert, SLOWLY, to the coal age.

Whether you like it or not, and more importantly whether you can realize it or not, modern society is tightly woven into petroleum.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

Gewehr98

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 11,010
  • Yee-haa!
    • Neural Misfires (Blog)
Re: Why no drilling for oil?
« Reply #82 on: August 13, 2008, 09:22:27 PM »
Mike speaks true. We wouldn't have the proverbial pot to piss in sans petroleum, quite literally.

Which is why the piddly return from ANWR isn't THE solution - the easy oil in this hemisphere has already been pumped out, so exploration elsewhere is needed to keep us poor petroleum-thirsty bastards slaked until the oil shale, tar sand, coal liquefaction, geothermal, biofuel, wind, solar, tidal surge, nuclear and all the other emerging energy sources can be brought into play. $4.00/gallon is just a taste of things to come, IMHO.
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

http://neuralmisfires.blogspot.com

"Never squat with your spurs on!"

anygunanywhere

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 142
Re: Why no drilling for oil?
« Reply #83 on: August 14, 2008, 04:29:09 AM »
Quote
The leases are for land that the oil companies think may have oil beneath the surface. There may be oil, there may not be oil. There may be oil but it would require drilling though hundreds of feet of rock to get to it.

How is that different from drilling anywhere else?  They dont know any more about the oil under the new leases they want to purchase than they do about the ones they already have. In most places they have to drill through thousands of feet of rock to get to the oil sands. It is cheaper to drill on dry land than it is to drill offshore on in a mudflat. There has to be another reason why they are not drilling the leases they have..


Geological/seismic surveys. Oil is not everywhere and some leases do not have any recoverable hydrocarbons.

Oil companies do initial seismic surveys of leases before they buy them. They do not just randomly bid on leases. There are leases available that no company has purchased because there is no oil or natural gas there.

The oil and gas in the leases the oil companies already have might not be as readily accessible as the oil in the areas where drilling is forbidden. Seismic surveys are allowed in areas where drilling is not allowed. The technology is quite advanced but some deposits either just are not accessible with current technology or the platforms are busy not available for years. The deeper the water, the deeper the field, the more sophisticated the rigs must be to recover the oil.

You can bet that Nancy Pelosi is reviewing the seismic surveys of the areas currently under lease. She is probably pointing to the spot right now and telling Exxon where to drill to hit pay dirt.

Quote
There has to be another reason why they are not drilling the leases they have..
I would hazard the guess that they have not serveyed the areas they have, thus they have no idea what is there.

Seismic crews are busy searching right now. $100+/bbl oil drives a lot of exploration.

FWIW, I was a doodlebugger after my Navy hitch and my brother works offshore for BP.

Anygunanywhere

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: Why no drilling for oil?
« Reply #84 on: August 14, 2008, 05:02:16 AM »
History channel had a show on last night about oil and it made a point on how dependent we really are on oil. From the shoes we wear, to the drugs we take, to the cars we drive.

Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536