Chilly Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/econo...dex.htm?cnn=yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 If the oil companies can so easily pump oil from the areas they presently lease, then why are they (allegedly) pushing for more areas to be open to leasing (will cost them additional $$ if not tapped), through the Republicans? Someone please explain why this makes sense. That clearly is the Democratic talking point, but why do they think it makes sense? What does the evil oil companies have to gain by opening up ANWR, as one example, that they can't get by opening up leased land they already have? Where is the motive? Somebody help me here... For the life of me, I cannot stand NIMBYism we have in this country. The same people who B word and moan about our presence in the ME are often the very same people who are against us keeping our money here and developing our own sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Because having a lease for drilling on a property doesn't mean there is oil there, it is recoverable, or recoverable economically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Why have the lease if they are not going to explore the land and see if there is oil there? If there isn't, open the land up for something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 If the oil companies can so easily pump oil from the areas they presently lease, then why are they (allegedly) pushing for more areas to be open to leasing (will cost them additional $$ if not tapped), through the Republicans? From the oil companies perspective, it is not about pumping oil today. It is about locking up reserves for tomorrow. Having long-term drilling rights to a big chunk of ANWAR puts you in a strong financial position regardless of when you start tapping into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 That clearly is the Democratic talking point, but why do they think it makes sense?: For the life of me, I cannot stand NIMBYism we have in this country. The same people who B word and moan about our presence in the ME are often the very same people who are against us keeping our money here and developing our own sources. I look at it another way. "Developing our own sources" is a popularist talking point. It suggests that if we drill our oil, it goes to the american consumer, lowering prices. It doesn't. It goes on the world market, at best bringing overall prices down a few pennies - but I would expect the Saudi's to curtail production to compensate. So what does it do for americans? Nothing at the gas pump. Instead, the treasury gets revenue from the leases (history suggesting below-market prices), and it gets sucked into the budget. So I look at it not as a solving of our energy needs, but simply as more selling off of our national resouces just to piss it away during an era of fiscal irresponsibility. It's not worth it - let the others pump theirs first, and save ours for the next century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 If the oil companies can so easily pump oil from the areas they presently lease, then why are they (allegedly) pushing for more areas to be open to leasing (will cost them additional $$ if not tapped), through the Republicans? Someone please explain why this makes sense. They have now leased 41 million acres of offshore leases. They're only pumping in 10.2 million of those acres. Seventy-nine percent of all the offshore oil available off the coast of Florida, into the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Coast, the Pacific Coast, lies within those acres that they now have. There's estimated to be a total of 54 billion barrels of oil at their disposal right now. The offshore leases they have are in deeper water, and while they have the technology to drill there and have done it, it costs more than if they were to drill closer to shore where the new areas being discussed are. It's all about them trying to maximize their profits, it has nothing to do with available sites with oil to drill. Instead of spending billions of dollars of their profits in stock buybacks, they could be using the profits to cover the cost of drilling in the currently leased deep water sites. Let them commit to fully develop those currently leased sites, and then we can discuss whether they need additional leases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 I look at it another way. "Developing our own sources" is a popularist talking point. It suggests that if we drill our oil, it goes to the american consumer, lowering prices. It doesn't. It goes on the world market, at best bringing overall prices down a few pennies - but I would expect the Saudi's to curtail production to compensate. So what does it do for americans? Nothing at the gas pump. Instead, the treasury gets revenue from the leases (history suggesting below-market prices), and it gets sucked into the budget. So I look at it not as a solving of our energy needs, but simply as more selling off of our national resouces just to piss it away during an era of fiscal irresponsibility. It's not worth it - let the others pump theirs first, and save ours for the next century. Two points- 1) Do you know how much oil produced here gets exported? The figures vary but equate to ~10% of what we produce. 2) If we were to open Federal Lands (ANWR) to production, why not have the Gov't include a caveat that any oil produced must be sold here? I'm not sure if this is a legal option, but if we could guarantee that it will be used domestically which will serve to offset our dependence on foreign sources, why not? Low prices are not what concern me the most. I want us out of the ME as fast as is realistically possible. The reason we are in Iraq is because it is in our strategic interests. When we no longer need to have boots on the ground there to protect our crack supply, all the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts