Perchoutofwater Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Instead of sounding alarmist, ask yourself WHY as you say 1/3 of one of the major political parties wants to do this. Is it an over reaction, or is the situation that extreme? Unless you think 5 dollars a gallon isn't extreme I could perhaps see where you're coming from. But something is seriously wrong, and shouting down a prosed solution without endorsing one yourself doesn't get much traction with me. If you don't see a problem at the moment, then I'm as baffled as you are but for completly different reasons. Looking at the price of gas in other industrialized countries it would appear that it is an overreaction. The chart on this page shows the cost per gallon in the US is still considerably lower than it is in other industrialized countries. I also found this interesting, This chart shows county by county cost of gas in the US. Naturally on the west coast where they don't want refineries, and have to have all the special blends for outrageous emissions standards the cost is much higher than everywhere else. Interestingly enough I live in one of the three cheapest counties in Texas, and if I had to guess it is because we have a refinery in our city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Naturally on the west coast where they don't want refineries, and have to have all the special blends for outrageous emissions standards the cost is much higher than everywhere else. Interestingly enough I live in one of the three cheapest counties in Texas, and if I had to guess it is because we have a refinery in our city. I live in a dark red county (most expensive gas prices) and I'm not aware of any outrageous emission standards for our state. There are 2 refineries within 10 miles of my house and another about 20 miles away. Not that you don't know what you are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Looking at the price of gas in other industrialized countries it would appear that it is an overreaction. The chart on this page shows the cost per gallon in the US is still considerably lower than it is in other industrialized countries. I also found this interesting, This chart shows county by county cost of gas in the US. Naturally on the west coast where they don't want refineries, and have to have all the special blends for outrageous emissions standards the cost is much higher than everywhere else. Interestingly enough I live in one of the three cheapest counties in Texas, and if I had to guess it is because we have a refinery in our city. How interesting that Venezuela with it's nationalized petroleum industry is at 19 cents per gallon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 How interesting that Venezuela with it's nationalized petroleum industry is at 19 cents per gallon. They are also a Socialist leaning state, they have 20% unemployment, inflation is 3%+ MONTHLY... I'd rather have the $4 a gallon gas. Also, Venezuela is one of the worlds top producers of petroleum, the huge supply they have available to them has a tendency to decrease the price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 They are also a Socialist leaning state, they have 20% unemployment, inflation is 3%+ MONTHLY... I'd rather have the $4 a gallon gas. Also, Venezuela is one of the worlds top producers of petroleum, the huge supply they have available to them has a tendency to decrease the price. Are you implying that the US oil companies do not have a hugh supply available to them to drill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) Are you implying that the US oil companies do not have a hugh supply available to them to drill? No, I am stating that we do not have as big of a supply of oil reserves as does Venezuela. And that when you compare the supply/demand for venezuela vs. the US our demand is at a much greater disequilibrium compared to supply than is Venezuela's. But if you want to go down that road, I will state that the US does not have nearly the reserves of oil or the ability to drill into those reserves that Venezuela does. As a matter of fact, There are at least 10 countries in the world that have larger reserves than does the US and not near the restrictions on drilling that are placed upon the US oil companies. Edited June 20, 2008 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 How interesting that Venezuela with it's nationalized petroleum industry is at 19 cents per gallon. well you see they also actually DRILL for the oil under their soil -- which, I dunno, may just be more of a factor than the government ownership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 No, I am stating that we do not have as big of a supply of oil reserves as does Venezuela. And that when you compare the supply/demand for venezuela vs. the US our demand is at a much greater disequilibrium compared to supply than is Venezuela's. But if you want to go down that road, I will state that the US does not have nearly the reserves of oil or the ability to drill into those reserves that Venezuela does. As a matter of fact, There are at least 10 countries in the world that have larger reserves than does the US and not near the restrictions on drilling that are placed upon the US oil companies. So, it is your belief that the United States oil companies are drilling in every space they have leased to max capacity.....you whole long rant aside.....do you even know what you are talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 well you see they also actually DRILL for the oil under their soil -- which, I dunno, may just be more of a factor than the government ownership. Same question to you. Is it your position that the oil companies have simply run out of space to drill and now need more locations because they are at max capacity on existing leases? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 updated 2:57 p.m. CT, Tues., June. 1, 2004 WASHINGTON - Nearly three-fourths of the 40 million acres of public land currently leased for oil and gas development in the continental United States outside Alaska isn’t producing any oil or gas, federal records show, even as the Bush administration pushes to open more environmentally sensitive public lands for oil and gas development. An Associated Press computer analysis of Bureau of Land Management records found that 80 percent of federal lands leased for oil and gas production in Wyoming are producing no oil or gas. Neither are 83 percent of the leased acres in Montana, 77 percent in Utah, 71 percent in Colorado, 36 percent in New Mexico and 99 percent in Nevada. How much exploration has occurred on the nearly 30 million acres of non-producing public land leases is difficult to say. BLM officials could provide no details on the number of exploratory wells drilled on those leases, despite repeated requests for that information over the past two months. Notice the date on this article. And yet, the imaging technology that claims there is oil in the OCS also indicates plenty of oil on these lands. There is also a hugh amount of oil in Alaska on leases that haven't been developed that aren't included in these numbers. So, anyone who claims the poor oil companies have no place to drill...well...you know...you can do that! Read more from source Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Notice the date on this article. And yet, the imaging technology that claims there is oil in the OCS also indicates plenty of oil on these lands. There is also a hugh amount of oil in Alaska on leases that haven't been developed that aren't included in these numbers. So, anyone who claims the poor oil companies have no place to drill...well...you know...you can do that! Read more from source Weak... The article itself states the following: A recent Wilderness Society study found that BLM has approved more than 25,000 drilling permits for public lands over the past decade, but the industry had drilled only about 19,000 new wells during that period. (that tells me that 76% of the land that they have drilling permits for is being used) very few new onshore oil drilling rigs have been built since the mid-1980s, because of price volatility in the oil field supply and service sectors. (it is not, in some cases, economically feasible for the oil companies to extract the oil from some of these areas, the costs to extract may exceed the profit from the oil) “A lot of these areas where existing leases are being held onto may have low potential for production, based on industry analysis now,” he said. (see above) Morton said the leases, which companies can lock up for 10 years with annual rents of only $2 to $3 an acre, are an economic boon to some companies because they count as assets that can make debt refinancing easier while also attracting potential investors. To summarize. Just because they oil company has a lease on the land does not mean that they can drill for oil on said land. That and in many cases the leasing is speculative, further research may have indicated that the supplies of oil underground do not warrant drilling, or that the sheer cost to extract said oil may outweigh the economic benefits to the company. Some of these lease are executed purely for business reasons, increasing a companies stable of assets allowing them to leverage them when refinancing debt. Good article, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Weak... The article itself states the following: A recent Wilderness Society study found that BLM has approved more than 25,000 drilling permits for public lands over the past decade, but the industry had drilled only about 19,000 new wells during that period. (that tells me that 76% of the land that they have drilling permits for is being used) very few new onshore oil drilling rigs have been built since the mid-1980s, because of price volatility in the oil field supply and service sectors. (it is not, in some cases, economically feasible for the oil companies to extract the oil from some of these areas, the costs to extract may exceed the profit from the oil) “A lot of these areas where existing leases are being held onto may have low potential for production, based on industry analysis now,” he said. (see above) Morton said the leases, which companies can lock up for 10 years with annual rents of only $2 to $3 an acre, are an economic boon to some companies because they count as assets that can make debt refinancing easier while also attracting potential investors. To summarize. Just because they oil company has a lease on the land does not mean that they can drill for oil on said land. That and in many cases the leasing is speculative, further research may have indicated that the supplies of oil underground do not warrant drilling, or that the sheer cost to extract said oil may outweigh the economic benefits to the company. Some of these lease are executed purely for business reasons, increasing a companies stable of assets allowing them to leverage them when refinancing debt. Good article, though. And yet the smae tech shows oil and they will not report how many test wells have been drilled. They have plenty of current space...exhasut that then we will talk about ruining our industry on the coasts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 (edited) And yet the smae tech shows oil and they will not report how many test wells have been drilled. They have plenty of current space...exhasut that then we will talk about ruining our industry on the coasts. Imagine, a government organization not being able to report the number of test drill sites in a timely manner.... You do not know that they have plenty of space from which to economically extract oil, at least that information is not provided in your article. Further, in many of these cases, I am certain that the leaseholders are uncertain as to whether there is any extractable oil in the ground. It is called prospecting for a reason. So for you to assert that there is a bulk of untapped oil available in the leaseholds is a guess or half truth at best. Conversely, we know there is oil in ANWR. Ruining what industry on the coast? Edited June 23, 2008 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I found this article to be pretty interesting, an interesting historical account: predictions by fellow engineers that the U.S. oil resources would be exhausted in five, ten or 25 years, unless steps were taken to check the flow. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,846321,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Imagine, a government organization not being able to report the number of test drill sites in a timely manner....You do not know that they have plenty of space from which to economically extract oil, at least that information is not provided in your article. Further, in many of these cases, I am certain that the leaseholders are uncertain as to whether there is any extractable oil in the ground. It is called prospecting for a reason. So for you to assert that there is a bulk of untapped oil available in the leaseholds is a guess or half truth at best. Conversely, we know there is oil in ANWR. Ruining what industry on the coast? And yet you offer NO proof to the contrary. The article states clearly that it isn't the government reporting the drill sites....it is the oil companies withholding this information from the federal government. My guess is you should re-read the entire article with an open mind...and quit mining the dang thing for small little snippets that MIGHT support a point in which you have ZERO evidence. At least I can point to the fact the oil companies have leases on current ground that they are not using to its full potential. You have.......crickets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 They are also a Socialist leaning state, they have 20% unemployment, inflation is 3%+ MONTHLY... I'd rather have the $4 a gallon gas. Also, Venezuela is one of the worlds top producers of petroleum, the huge supply they have available to them has a tendency to decrease the price. well you see they also actually DRILL for the oil under their soil -- which, I dunno, may just be more of a factor than the government ownership. Caught two fish. Not too bad for a throwaway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 And yet you offer NO proof to the contrary. The article states clearly that it isn't the government reporting the drill sites....it is the oil companies withholding this information from the federal government. My guess is you should re-read the entire article with an open mind...and quit mining the dang thing for small little snippets that MIGHT support a point in which you have ZERO evidence. At least I can point to the fact the oil companies have leases on current ground that they are not using to its full potential. You have.......crickets? Just because they have leases does not mean that there is oil, and that if there is oil, that it is recoverable, and if it is recoverable, that it is economically feasible to do so at this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Just because they have leases does not mean that there is oil, and that if there is oil, that it is recoverable, and if it is recoverable, that it is economically feasible to do so at this time. Let me interpret this for you in the oil company speak: Just because we have leases doesn't mean we have to drill here. And if we did, the oil is deep and slightly to moderately dirty and cannot be sold at these inflated prices the market is currently at. While there is no proof the oil is recoverable, we have the technology to show that it is....read previous sentence. It is more economically feasible for us to maximize profits by being able to drill on the OCS, cause the oil there is of the light sweet variety....and we can sell that at the highly inflated prices to foreign governments.....thereby not lessening the price pressures at the pump. Anyone who thinks an oil company buys up leases because there is no recoverable oil is a fool. There is recoverable(deep) oil in Alaska on current leases....but no drilling...why? Because there is no world market for this oil....and the only use is refining.....in which we have the only refineries that can refine the oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Let me interpret this for you in the oil company speak: Just because we have leases doesn't mean we have to drill here. And if we did, the oil is deep and slightly to moderately dirty and cannot be sold at these inflated prices the market is currently at. While there is no proof the oil is recoverable, we have the technology to show that it is....read previous sentence. It is more economically feasible for us to maximize profits by being able to drill on the OCS, cause the oil there is of the light sweet variety....and we can sell that at the highly inflated prices to foreign governments.....thereby not lessening the price pressures at the pump. Anyone who thinks an oil company buys up leases because there is no recoverable oil is a fool. There is recoverable(deep) oil in Alaska on current leases....but no drilling...why? Because there is no world market for this oil....and the only use is refining.....in which we have the only refineries that can refine the oil. Why would a company drill for oil in area A that cost $2 to pull out of the ground and refine, when they can drill in area B that costs $1 to pull out of the ground? It would be a pour business decision, at the current demand. If you nationalize the oil industry, would you want your government to make such a poor business decision? I'm sure the stockholders of the oil companies don't want poor decisions like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 (edited) And yet you offer NO proof to the contrary. The article states clearly that it isn't the government reporting the drill sites....it is the oil companies withholding this information from the federal government. My guess is you should re-read the entire article with an open mind...and quit mining the dang thing for small little snippets that MIGHT support a point in which you have ZERO evidence. At least I can point to the fact the oil companies have leases on current ground that they are not using to its full potential. You have.......crickets? I can point to the fact that 76% of those areas in which they have drilling permits are producing oil. Big difference between having a lease and having a drilling permit. Also, big difference between having a lease and an oil field. Snippets, I'm using snippets? I gave you 4 Quotes from the article supporting my POV (and can pull more), you use one quote that states X number of the leased lands are producing oil and x number are not and I'm the one pulling snippets?!?!?! You're kidding me, right? And you might be right on one point, while skimming the article, I saw that the BLM could not supply them with the number of test wells, my bad, the oil companies aren't supplying the BLM with that info, who cares... You would think however that the BLM would have been looking for that info for more than the last two months and would have that kind of info on file. Here are some additional quotes: the BLM has completed a study of impediments to oil and gas exploration and development, speeded up approvals of drilling permits and begun expedited updates of land use plans in 21 areas (some of these areas are not being used due to the slow permitting process) Even as more land is opened for leasing, it’s questionable whether the industry has the resources to explore it. (It is not economically feasible in some cases to extract or even locate oil in some of these leased areas. THey make an educated guess in making these leases, but can often times strike out) Edited June 23, 2008 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Caught two fish. Not too bad for a throwaway. I would reply, but didn't want to get caught again.... Wait, but I guess I did.... dammit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Why would a company drill for oil in area A that cost $2 to pull out of the ground and refine, when they can drill in area B that costs $1 to pull out of the ground? Because it sells for $130, and doesn't require the federal government to sell off a national forest? Stop worrying about the profits of the oil company. Honestly, they're ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Because it sells for $130, and doesn't require the federal government to sell off a national forest? Stop worrying about the profits of the oil company. Honestly, they're ok. I was just pointing out to dip shiznit that even if oil companies were nationalized, I would want them to go after the most profitable or most economical product. I haven't got a clue how much it costs to pull a barrel out of the ground. Hey Atomic, did you marry Randull's sister? Lately you've been off the reservation a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Because it sells for $130, and doesn't require the federal government to sell off a national forest? Stop worrying about the profits of the oil company. Honestly, they're ok. But I want to ensure their well being for years into the future so that all of the millions of people who have retirement monies invested in oil/petrol stocks will not have to rely on the soon to be bankrupt social security system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I haven't got a clue how much it costs to pull a barrel out of the ground. About $5. Man, you have a lot of opinions about something you don't know much about. I find that fascinating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.