Why open more land to drilling

[PLC1]

when most of the land already open is not being exploited?


Most oil leases on public lands go unused

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.

Alan Colmes kept asking his listeners that question Fox News (xm radio) while I was driving home last night. Not one listener was able to answer his question. Can you?

 

[Andy]

This is where people say there is a liberal bias, and get skewered for it. But look at this article!

The story makes the claim that “The aggressive leasing of public land pushed by the Bush administration is a land grab, pure and simple, giving industry more and more control over public land while costing taxpayers millions of dollars”

Leasing land (by bush) is a land grab that costs taxpayers millions. But wait...

Then you read the article and find that companies are paying $2-$3 per acre... but are not drilling... but their paying for drilling rights... but their not...

Are you getting this? These companies are paying our government for the rights to do something... they are not doing! And this lame liberal bias, anti-bush crap, article is claiming it's costing tax payers millions!

Let me ask you... if you rented a home to a person, who paid... but never showed up or ever used the home... how would that be 'costing you millions'? It is a ludicrous claim, just like the feeble minded article! "There's no liberal bias! blaw blaw!" You are a JOKE!

... but it doesn't end there. If this was a campaign contribution to Bush, what would they do? They'd be asking everyone. They'd interview everyone on the planet until they got answer and why this, and who that, and whatever.

Notice how they do not ask anyone anything in this article? Did they ask any energy companies why they are not drilling? Or any lease holders why they are not drilling? Did they ask anyone anything?

The answers could be numerous. Perhaps the environmental restrictions on some lands, makes oil production too costly to be viable. Here's a novel thought... did it occur to anyone perhaps there isn't any oil, or enough oil on those lands to drill for?

Or perhaps, as I have said before, Oil companies are not going to bother trying for new sources of oil, when the currently known sources, they are not allowed to tap. Why hunt for a new spot when they won't let you drill the spot you already know about?

That's bad investment. You pay for exploration, pay for drilling, and just when you hit a huge patch of oil, the government steps in and "oh you might harm the snot nosed lily weed bat... can't drill there!". Bad investment. That's why most oil companies are saying... forget this, until we can get the oil WE KNOW IS THERE... forget about looking elsewhere.

Why do you think most oil companies brave tariffs and crazy foreign governments, to invest outside the US? um... because of this issue RIGHT HERE!

 

[GenSeneca]

Not one listener was able to answer his question. Can you?

Say's something about his callers.

The date of the article: June. 1, 2004
In 2001, Bush and the Republican Congress opened up a great deal of leasing and exploration rights. By 2006, it was clear there was a new majority and Drilling was to be removed from Domestic energy options... as seen by the Democrat Congress repealing leasing rights after their takeover.

the leases, which companies can lock up for 10 years

You get leasing rights for 10 years... then that land goes to the highest bidder every 10 years after that. Whatever you build there, you will have to take with you or leave behind.... And you have to do it all within the confines of our strict environmentalist policies.

federal limit on the number of leased acres

So the simplest, most direct answer:

10 year leases, limited amount of acres your allowed to lease, environmental restrictions and a Democrat party majority thats flat out hostile to "Big Oil" and has openly threatened nationalizing the industry.

 

[Montesquieu]

when most of the land already open is not being exploited?


Most oil leases on public lands go unused




Alan Colmes kept asking his listeners that question Fox News (xm radio) while I was driving home last night. Not one listener was able to answer his question. Can you?

If we're not exploiting it what harm could come of opening more?
If not to encourage it just a little more

 

[Andy]

Say's something about his callers.

The date of the article: June. 1, 2004
In 2001, Bush and the Republican Congress opened up a great deal of leasing and exploration rights. By 2006, it was clear there was a new majority and Drilling was to be removed from Domestic energy options... as seen by the Democrat Congress repealing leasing rights after their takeover.

the leases, which companies can lock up for 10 years

You get leasing rights for 10 years... then that land goes to the highest bidder every 10 years after that. Whatever you build there, you will have to take with you or leave behind.... And you have to do it all within the confines of our strict environmentalist policies.

federal limit on the number of leased acres

So the simplest, most direct answer:

10 year leases, limited amount of acres your allowed to lease, environmental restrictions and a Democrat party majority thats flat out hostile to "Big Oil" and has openly threatened nationalizing the industry.

No one is going to install millions, if not billions of dollars worth of equipment on a leased land, to only lose their lease rights and end up losing all their investment.

Further if there is a limitation to the acreage, then it's possible you could purchase drilling rights with a lease, and end up not finding oil there, only to discover it's on another patch of land you can't lease now.

This whole thing is ridiculous if correct.

 

[PLC1]

What Ive gleaned from the discussion so far is that, in order to give the oil industry an incentive to explore lands already open for exploitation, the government needs to give them some assurance that they won't dump billions into a project just to see their lease expire.

If that is the case, why not start there instead of opening new lands, then imposing the same restrictions and having the same disincentives for investment in those lands?

Could it be that suggesting that the ANWR and coastal areas be open to oil drilling is just more political crap?

 

[Andy]

What Ive gleaned from the discussion so far is that, in order to give the oil industry an incentive to explore lands already open for exploitation, the government needs to give them some assurance that they won't dump billions into a project just to see their lease expire.

If that is the case, why not start there instead of opening new lands, then imposing the same restrictions and having the same disincentives for investment in those lands?

Could it be that suggesting that the ANWR and coastal areas be open to oil drilling is just more political crap?

We don't need to give them an incentive. We simply need to get out of their way. That's it. You don't need to give a businessman man a reason to do business... it's what he does. The problem is... our wonderful federal government has gotten in the way.

That said, clearly, yes. You are right, the government needs to either, sell the land completely (what i prefer), or write the leases in such a way that it makes good economic sense, with low risk.

Just think about it. The claim is that it requires roughly 5 years to go from exploration to drilling to well producing oil. So, if I offered you the option to lease a 2 acer plot of land to build a house on, that may cost you $250K to build, take 5 years to build, and you lose it all in 10 years... would you do it? Would anyone? Of course not. So this obviously is an issue.

Now granted, there is a reason to lease the lands though. Do you realize how much money the federal government is raking in on leased land? Lease land that isn't being used! Which is why I disagree with the whole thing. The federal government shouldn't be owning land. It should be sold to the public. If the states want to buy it, that's their deal. But there is nothing in our constitution about the federal government being in the real estate business.

I happen to find an article on this, and in that article, a letter from Senator Ernest Ishtook of Oklahoma. In it he states the following reasons that a company may not use a land lease.

1. A company may lease a plot, but never get the funds to properly explore or drill it.
2. A company may find after exploration tests like seismic, that the cost of the lease isn't worth the cost of drilling.
3. A company may hold the lease until such a time as the cost of oil rises till it's profitable, or new technologies allow economic drilling.
4. A company may purchase multiple tracts, and focus on one with given capital, and wait for the others in turn.
5. A company (this is shocking) might be blocked by government red tape, both federal and state, and/or lawsuits by eco-nuts (my wording here)
6. Finely, and most important, the federal government is pretty much selling drilling leases for random federal lands. There is not the slightest chance that all the acres have enough oil to be profitable, and in many cases, any oil at all.

So on the federal lands we know without question there is tons, if not trillions of barrels of oil, they are not leasing a single acre. But on a random plot of federal land in Idaho, sign up to purchase drilling rights. Then we whine they are not drilling?

 

[Sihouette]

Recipe for overcoming environmental law:

1. Create a crises jacking up price of gas to crazy levels

2. Rake in profits and party down..

3. Convince general public that alternative renewable energy that is already in place and working like a gem in most other developed nations is "silly and an unreasonable pursuit (that they cannot meter as easily and charge the public up the wazoo)..that we need more oil NOW".

4. Talk about nuclear instead to scare the pants off of them..

5. Then propose we open up Alaska and sensitive regions offshore in the lower 48.

6. People go for it in a panic.

7. Great success....Hi five!

 

[Andy]

Recipe for overcoming environmental law:

They are stupid, un-necessary, un-constitutional, and harm the American economy. That's my recipe.

1. Create a crises jacking up price of gas to crazy levels

No one controls the price of oil. Oil is sold on a free market. Learn some economics.

2. Rake in profits and party down..

That is what everyone does. You wouldn't work at your burger flipping fast food job, if you didn't take home a pay check, would you?

3. Convince general public that alternative renewable energy that is already in place and working like a gem in most other developed nations is "silly and an unreasonable pursuit (that they cannot meter as easily and charge the public up the wazoo)..that we need more oil NOW".

Um... it isn't. You don't have to convince people it isn't, because... factually... it isn't. lol Go read about Brazil. Their energy independance, isn't due to Ethanol, it's oil. Brazil found a massive cache of oil off it's coast, and currently Brazil had the most leased off shore drilling rigs in the world. Maybe you should take a look at what is working like a gem for them, and adapt it here.

4. Talk about nuclear instead to scare the pants off of them..

No idea what you are referring too here. Nuclear power is a great idea.

5. Then propose we open up Alaska and sensitive regions offshore in the lower 48.

6. People go for it in a panic.

I'm not panicked. I'm thinking, that's why I support getting rid of dumb eco-fruitbat laws.

7. Great success....Hi five!

Here's how to gain support by leftist nut balls:
1. Complain about energy companies.
2. Install horribly restrictive laws on energy companies.
3. Wait until horrible laws cause energy to spike in price.
4. Ignore your own involvement in the price spike, and event crazy fantastical theories as to how it's due to "Big XXX" and how there is a grand conspiracy to cause the spike in energy prices that you caused.
5. Then claim all attempts to reverse the horrible laws you supported, that caused the spike in price, as being proof that the grand conspiracy is true and it really is due to "big whatever".

 

[PLC1]

We don't need to give them an incentive. We simply need to get out of their way. That's it. You don't need to give a businessman man a reason to do business... it's what he does. The problem is... our wonderful federal government has gotten in the way.

That said, clearly, yes. You are right, the government needs to either, sell the land completely (what i prefer), or write the leases in such a way that it makes good economic sense, with low risk.

Just think about it. The claim is that it requires roughly 5 years to go from exploration to drilling to well producing oil. So, if I offered you the option to lease a 2 acer plot of land to build a house on, that may cost you $250K to build, take 5 years to build, and you lose it all in 10 years... would you do it? Would anyone? Of course not. So this obviously is an issue.

Now granted, there is a reason to lease the lands though. Do you realize how much money the federal government is raking in on leased land? Lease land that isn't being used! Which is why I disagree with the whole thing. The federal government shouldn't be owning land. It should be sold to the public. If the states want to buy it, that's their deal. But there is nothing in our constitution about the federal government being in the real estate business.

I happen to find an article on this, and in that article, a letter from Senator Ernest Ishtook of Oklahoma. In it he states the following reasons that a company may not use a land lease.

1. A company may lease a plot, but never get the funds to properly explore or drill it.
2. A company may find after exploration tests like seismic, that the cost of the lease isn't worth the cost of drilling.
3. A company may hold the lease until such a time as the cost of oil rises till it's profitable, or new technologies allow economic drilling.
4. A company may purchase multiple tracts, and focus on one with given capital, and wait for the others in turn.
5. A company (this is shocking) might be blocked by government red tape, both federal and state, and/or lawsuits by eco-nuts (my wording here)
6. Finely, and most important, the federal government is pretty much selling drilling leases for random federal lands. There is not the slightest chance that all the acres have enough oil to be profitable, and in many cases, any oil at all.

So on the federal lands we know without question there is tons, if not trillions of barrels of oil, they are not leasing a single acre. But on a random plot of federal land in Idaho, sign up to purchase drilling rights. Then we whine they are not drilling?

You are making a lot of sense there. Why not simply get out of their way, as you put it, and let the industry do what it does best?

The government is often the problem rather than the solution, anyway, and the federal government has gotten so big, so powerful, so expensive as to be a hindrance to meeting the challenges we face as a nation.

There is one more little problem, though, with the scenario of allowing the oil industry leeway to explore for oil and to profit from such exploration:

Where is the oil to be sold?

If it is sold on the world market, then the increased amount is likely to be small enough as to make little impact. In addition, all the OPEC nations would have to do would be to cut back production just a little, which, along with increased demand from China and India, would keep the price high.

If it is sold domestically, then it has a shot at making a real impact, at least in this country, but such a sale would have to be a part of an agreement with the industry, don't you think?

 

[GenSeneca]

Recipe for overcoming environmental law:

1. Create a crises jacking up price of gas to crazy levels

2. Rake in profits and party down..

3. Convince general public that alternative renewable energy that is already in place and working like a gem in most other developed nations is "silly and an unreasonable pursuit (that they cannot meter as easily and charge the public up the wazoo)..that we need more oil NOW".

4. Talk about nuclear instead to scare the pants off of them..

5. Then propose we open up Alaska and sensitive regions offshore in the lower 48.

6. People go for it in a panic.

7. Great success....Hi five!

Quite the international conspiracy...
1. International Commodity, the US alone doesn't hold anywhere close to enough oil on the market to affect the worldwide market.
2. Gas @ $4.00 - Of that money:
Exxon Profit 10.5% (0.42c/gallon)
Gas Tax (.18:Fed+.28:State=.46c/gallon) <---Direct tax
Indirect taxes - those levied on Oil Companies - are shown over a 25 year period to be 3 times what oil companies make in profits... thats $1.26 @$4.00/gal.
Total profit from one gallon of gas @ $4.00/gal:
Exxon made $0.42c
Uncle Sam raked in: $1.72
3. Other countries? Like France? Upwards of 80% of their power comes from Nuclear (Which the Eco's won't let us build) but their gasoline is STILL $9 a gallon. Alternatives that currently exist, and are currently available, are incapable of replacing Gasoline - much less replacing oil altogether.
4. Name the countries with - alternative renewable energy that is already in place and working like a gem - that are NOT using nuclear power.
5. Don't use fossil fuels, or any of its derivatives, if you can't handle the thought of drilling. Vegetarians don't eat meat for much the same reason.
6. You want to see a panic? Keep listening to Democrats for Energy Policy.
7. Here are just some of the things made from Oil:
Air conditioners, ammonia, anti-histamines, antiseptics, artificial turf, asphalt, aspirin, balloons, bandages, boats, bottles, bras, bubble gum, butane, cameras, candles, car batteries, car bodies, carpet, cassette tapes, caulking, CDs, chewing gum, cold, combs/brushes, computers, contacts, cortisone, crayons, cream, denture adhesives, deodorant, detergents, dice, dishwashing liquid, dresses, dryers, electric blankets, electrician’s tape, fertilisers, fishing lures, fishing nets, fishing rods, floor wax, footballs, glues, glycerin, golf balls, guitar strings, hair, hair colouring, hair curlers, hearing aids, heart valves, heating oil, house paint, ice chests, ink, insect repellent, insulation, jet fuel, life jackets, linoleum, lip balm, lipstick, loudspeakers, medicines, mops, motor oil, motorcycle helmets, movie film, nail polish, nylons, oil filters, paddles, paint brushes, paints, parachutes, paraffin, pens, perfumes, petroleum jelly, plastic chairs, plastic cups, plastic forks, plastic wrap, plastics, plywood adhesives, refrigerators, roller-skate wheels, roofing paper, rubber bands, rubber boots, rubber cement, rubbish bags, running shoes, saccharine, seals, shirts (non-cotton), shoe polish, shoes, shower curtains, solvents, solvents, spectacles, stereos, sweaters, table tennis balls, tape recorders, telephones, tennis rackets, thermos, tights, toilet seats, toners, toothpaste, transparencies, transparent tape, TV cabinets, typewriter/computer ribbons, tyres, umbrellas, upholstery, vaporisers, vitamin capsules, volleyballs, water pipes, water skis, wax, wax paper
How many of those are we going to replace with "Alternatives"? We will continue to need oil for a long, long, long time - even after we stop using gasoline.

 

[Sihouette]

Yes yes, I'm paranoid...lol

Very few people are aware of how easy it is to suppress someone by insinuating that they are paranoid.

When you get a minute, read up on domestic PSYOPS. It's a real phenomenon. Sorry, I didn't just make it up. And I doubt that BigOil has a hand at carving domestic and foreign policy. You're right, that does sound a bit outlandish...how silly of me...

 

[Pandora]

I get emails from various polling groups. Here is a new one from Zogby about off-shore oil drilling. I can not put a link to it because it was an email.

Zogby Poll: 74% Support Off-Shore Oil Drilling in U.S. Coastal Waters​

Telephone survey finds 59% of likely voters favor drilling in ANWR; 25% of undecideds would be more likely to support McCain because he favors off-shore drilling​

UTICA, New York – Three in four likely voters – 74% – support off-shore drilling for oil in U.S. coastal waters and more than half (59%) also favor drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.

A majority of likely voters across the political spectrum support off-shore oil drilling, with vast majorities of Republicans (90%) and independents (75%) in favor of drilling for oil off U.S. coastal waters more than half of Democrats (58%) also said they favor off-shore drilling. Republicans (80%) and political independents (57%) are much more likely to favor drilling for oil in ANWR than Democrats (40%). The telephone survey of 1,113 likely voters nationwide was conducted June 12-14, 2008, and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.0 percentage points

Do you support or oppose drilling for oil off-shore in U.S. coastal waters?​

Support​

Oppose​

Republicans 90%​

Republicans 5%​

Democrats 58%​

Democrats 30%​

Independents 75%​

Independents 20%​

McCain benefits from off-shore drilling stance with undecideds
One in four likely voters (25%) said they would be more likely to vote for McCain if they knew that as president he would support off-shore drilling in U.S. coastal waters just 4% said McCains support for off-shore drilling would make him less likely to win their vote, while 57% said it made no difference and 15% were unsure. When undecided likely voters were asked about how likely they would be to support McCain if he favored drilling in ANWR, 23% would be more likely, while nearly as many (21%) said it would make them less likely to vote for McCain. Another 43% of likely voters said it would make no difference if McCain supported drilling in ANWR while 14% were undecided.

McCain recently restated his opposition to drilling in ANWR, but has dropped his opposition to lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling along America’s coasts.
Among undecided likely voters, 78% support off-shore drilling and 58% support drilling in ANWR. The vast majority of those likely voters who intend to vote for Republican John McCain in November support both drilling off-shore for oil in U.S. coastal waters (91%) and drilling for oil in ANWR (82%). While just over a third (37%) of those who plan to vote for Democrat Barack Obama support drilling in ANWR, more than half (58%) of likely voters who favor Obama said they support off-shore drilling.

 

[Sihouette]

The eight-year plan to secure US control of foreign oil and circumvent environmental law to secure all domestic sources is nearly complete. The shove GOP/Big Media/Big Oil gave to Gore, Kerry and most recently, Hillary, was part of keeping it on track. Now The Trap (promoting Obama to be the democratic nominee) is necessary to secure a McCain win and eight more years of same.

Big Oil and their public and media servants know full well what a Clinton win would mean: a modling (finally) of our energy policies after progressive European countries that have been weaning themselves of the oil teat for decades now to great and amazing success.

Why are the texas smudgy cowboys so adamant we stay addicted to fossil fuels? Because you can't put a meter on the sun, the wind and running water. If they were smart they'd have switched their lazy butts over to centralized alternative energy and metered the output. I know they're trying to take over this industry but the problem is that individuals don't need to engage in the complex process of refining crude oil in order to get nearly instant and clean energy right at home. In other words, who is going to pay rate hikes to a central authority when they can have their own private system that never jacks it's rates up?

It's all about gouging and manipulating prices. Look, you don't expect those poor texans to subsist on only five yachts in their string... What if their neighbor has six! Agahst the thought..

All you have to do is look at Europe. Go on. It's not hard. Just search "europe alternative energy" and off you go. Then you can see what Big Oil has smudgescreened us away from all these decades. Try no to groan when you read about how long Europe has been at it (how long the technology has been around) and how every single life lost in Iraq was wholly unnecessary.

 

[Pandora]

The eight-year plan to secure US control of foreign oil and circumvent environmental law to secure all domestic sources is nearly complete. The shove GOP/Big Media/Big Oil gave to Gore, Kerry and most recently, Hillary, was part of keeping it on track. Now The Trap (promoting Obama to be the democratic nominee) is necessary to secure a McCain win and eight more years of same.

Big Oil and their public and media servants know full well what a Clinton win would mean: a modling (finally) of our energy policies after progressive European countries that have been weaning themselves of the oil teat for decades now to great and amazing success.

Why are the texas smudgy cowboys so adamant we stay addicted to fossil fuels? Because you can't put a meter on the sun, the wind and running water. If they were smart they'd have switched their lazy butts over to centralized alternative energy and metered the output. I know they're trying to take over this industry but the problem is that individuals don't need to engage in the complex process of refining crude oil in order to get nearly instant and clean energy right at home. In other words, who is going to pay rate hikes to a central authority when they can have their own private system that never jacks it's rates up?

It's all about gouging and manipulating prices. Look, you don't expect those poor texans to subsist on only five yachts in their string... What if their neighbor has six! Agahst the thought..

All you have to do is look at Europe. Go on. It's not hard. Just search "europe alternative energy" and off you go. Then you can see what Big Oil has smudgescreened us away from all these decades. Try no to groan when you read about how long Europe has been at it (how long the technology has been around) and how every single life lost in Iraq was wholly unnecessary.

OK I looked up energy in Europe and it looks pretty good to me.


Nuclear Europe: Country guide
There are 173 nuclear reactors producing power in Europe (excluding Russia), with four under construction and others planned.
There is a wide divergence of approaches to nuclear power.
Some countries, like Germany and Spain, are committed to phasing out nuclear power; others, like Britain, are considering which way to proceed. Several others, including Ukraine and Finland, are building new power plants.


Working nuclear reactors 59
Reactors decommissioned/ out of use 11
Electricity from nuclear power 78% France has been Europe's most enthusiastic devotee of nuclear power, constructing dozens of reactors since the 1970s oil crises spurred on its desire for energy independence.

It has become the world's biggest net exporter of electricity, and is also a major exporter of nuclear technology. France began a public debate in 2003 on future energy policy, but the government seems committed. President Jacques Chirac has announced the fourth generation of nuclear reactors, using nuclear waste as a source of energy, while France will be the site for the international Iter experimental reactor.





http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4713398.stm