At $140 a barrel for oil don't you think these guys would be sucking every last drop out of the "thousands of miles" of land and sea they have to work with IF oil existed there? The lease rights to this land REQUIRES the oil companies explore regularly for oil or they lose the rights. They HAVE explored it and the oil either isn't there or isn't practical for use. It's like granting a farmer access to 1000 miles of sand covered desert and then complaining that he's not producing enough corn...
Quit the political foot dragging and let the energy companies at the reserves exist in this country and are currently inaccessible due to environmental lobby obstructionism. You guys can keep waiting on the hydrogen cell crapping fairies and research the next big alternative energy fad while the rest of us enjoy the plentiful energy reserves that exist in this country. When you can bring a more environmentally friendly and cost effective alternative to the table, we'll talk.
If there's evidence for any one of your points, I'd love to see it.
1) Oil companies have depleted their existing oil
2) lease rights requires oil companies to explore or lose (perhaps true but time frame would be rather important. 1 yr limit is one thing. 60 yr limit is another)
3) Oil companies have explored all land available to them
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,395
- 8,556
- 126
the period is 10 years, if no drilling the mineral rights go back to the feds.
exploration is expensive and takes a while. you don't just lease 10,000 acres and explore overnight, even on land. on the bottom of the sea under a mile of water it's even worse. for all i know they need an earthquake in the right location to get the waves needed for exploration. and i don't know that even if they knew oil was out there, that they'd be able to drill for it. there are limits to technology. further, even if they are able to drill it, it takes a long long time to get an offshore deepwater rig up and running. thunder horse has taken the better part of a decade since it was found in 1999 to begin production. it's delays may be atypical, but even so, it'd be optimistic to get oil within 5 years of discovery.
the fact of the matter is, neither you, nor i, nor anyone in congress is a petroleum engineer with a specialty in deep water operations.
Fair enough. If its been explored and they find no oil, there seems to be no reason to hold on to the lease, right?
Completely agree. If they have 10,000 acres, or even millions of acres, they're not going to explore it overnight. So what I'm trying to understand is that IF it does take them considerable effort to explore for sources, and there is potentially oil among the leases they have in-hand, why go after more land?
Cost would be a reasonable explanation. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and it may be better to go after oil that is known to exist at certain locations. But if oil companies pull this card, then there are other questions that beg asking. Like,
"what has been found in those existing lands since the leases were placed in their possession?" and
"what resources have been committed to finding oil in land for which they did not possess leases?" and if so,
"why didn't they commit those resources to finding oil in the lands that haven't yet been explored for which they have leases?
Sure. I may not know the viability of their methods. But given that 1) big oil is subject to gov oversight (either by the SEC or by others), 2)that oil is a commodity and as such has fundamental influence in the health of the US economy, 3) that big oil has, in the past, received gov funding in part for its operations, and that 4) I as a US taxpayer both pay for gov services and have say in the election of congress, I should have the right to question the means in which they practice their methods.
Even if new drilling does not mean lowering the overall price of Oil, just imagine the tax dollars your state could bring in and all the high paying jobs (Taxpayers) your state will get. There are added benefit to supporting infrastructure that any Oil drilling will create.
They are drilling wells like crazy in the North Western states right now. They had new oil wells all along the highway in Wyoming, when I drove through that area around the beginning of summer. You people need to open your minds and throw off your political programming. Are you robots for your political parties or intelligent human beings capable if independent thought?
The real problem is not the price of oil. The real problem is that the devaluing of the US Dollar is causing the prices of everything to go up exponentially. If we dont start paying attention to strategies to reinforce a strong Dollar we are all doomed to the worst depression the USA has ever seen.
They are drilling wells like crazy in the North Western states right now. They had new oil wells all along the highway in Wyoming, when I drove through that area around the beginning of summer. You people need to open your minds and throw off your political programming. Are you robots for your political parties or intelligent human beings capable if independent thought?
The real problem is not the price of oil. The real problem is that the devaluing of the US Dollar is causing the prices of everything to go up exponentially. If we dont start paying attention to strategies to reinforce a strong Dollar we are all doomed to the worst depression the USA has ever seen.
There is no reason at all we need to be as reliant on foreign oil in ten years as we are today - offshore drilling or not.
I promise you we didn't see Genx and his types bitching about Bush's father making the ban permanent back then.
I promise you we didn't see Genx and his types bitching about Bush's father making the ban permanent back then.
:disgust:
Give it a rest. Your attempt at playing wordsmith failed.
Who are my types anyways? People who arent stupid enough to believe all we need is faith an alternative energy source is just around the corner like the politicians want us to believe?
k
5to1baby1in5
Golden Member
- Apr 27, 2001
- 1,249
- 109
- 106
It is harder to get the oil out of the ground off-shore than it is to pull it straight out of the ground. We could not ramp up production in even 5-10 years (it would take 20 yrs according to the DOE). The impact on prices would also be negligable.
Link
Not worth the risk of trashing our coasts for a 0.3% to 1.0% decraese in the cost of oil.
I'm all in favor of just letting the prices flow with the market. Prices go up, demand goes down, and greenhouse emissions follow.
Keep the trend up, and alternative energy sources become economical (we have lots of coal and natural gas).
what risk, though? when was the last time a coast in the US was trashed as a consequence of one of the existing off-shore rigs?
I'd be all in favor of increasing prices if all it meant was that I personally had to be more aware of my fuel usage. I don't mind my commuting costs doubling, even. they're negligible as it is... but pretty much our entire physical economy is reliant on the trucking industry and increasing fuel prices are going to increase the prices on things we actually need to live, like food. not everyone has the option of setting up a commune and growing all their own food within walking distance all year round.
5to1baby1in5
Golden Member
- Apr 27, 2001
- 1,249
- 109
- 106
Gavelston beach has problems just from what dribbles out of the ships which pass through the channel.
Yes, there were SERIOUS problems w/ Galveston beaches years back. I like Galveston now and we go several times. Years ago you could not walk on the beach w/o oil sticking to your feet. It literally litered the beach. If you think seaweed can be a problem at times when it washes up on beaches you haven't seen anything unless you saw the clumps of oil all over the beach. YUCK!!! Then everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE you went there were huge mats in front of the doors and signs that were in your face to remind you to wipe your feet before coming in. That's the story with the beaches.
Prices of everything will go up due to increased fuel costs, but transportation is only part of the cost of your produce. When diesel costs doubled, the cost of lettuce didn't double.
Peoples salaries will also go up in reaction to increased prices. Kind of an artificial inflation.
Lets remember that the price of oil is in great part controlled by speculation over the FUTURE price (that's it's own bitchfest of a thread so I won't reopen that can of worms). Opening offshore drilling and other events that will effect long term supply will have a direct impact on the futures market and should bring down the price of oil futures accordingly. Actual presence or absence of oil in the marketplace is not required immediately to impact prices as those of you who complain about speculators should already know. It swings both ways... 
There are 3,000ish oil wells/rigs in that area and the best you could come up with was dribbles out of ships? Seriously?
I'm all about alternative energy and normally support the environment first, but c'mon seriously... Do you think putting everyone in a Prius tommorow is possible? If we could do it would it remove our dependence on oil. Car manufacturers are already drawing up designs for cars 10 years from now! I bet most are either pure ICE or hybrid. Almost all alternative enrgy other than nukes produce much less power than fossil fuels. We'd need wholescale rearranging of our infrastructure into cities with only public transportation. Electric cars you say? Well unless somebody invents a battery that has 2x the capacity of lithium ion (which can burn/blow up in little battery sizes like in laptops), puts it into mass production, and has it ready for sale for $20000 by 2018 is not possible. People need more than 300 miles between charges, unless you can trade cars in between while the other charges.
In other words, trying to find oil in the shores/ Rocky mountains NOW is the best answer for energy needs NOW and the the next 10 years while we still try to develop the other technologies. I'll admit we've been kinda lax in the zeal to develop alternative energy, but we should be puttin dollars into finding oil now AND developing new tech (alot more agressively in the past, not by expecting oil companies to find alternatives either)
Not doing anything trying to find new oil while expecting some secret revolutionary energy source like nuclear fusion just to land on our laps in the next 10 years is folly.
In other words, trying to find oil in the shores/ Rocky mountains NOW is the best answer for energy needs NOW and the the next 10 years while we still try to develop the other technologies. I'll admit we've been kinda lax in the zeal to develop alternative energy, but we should be puttin dollars into finding oil now AND developing new tech (alot more agressively in the past, not by expecting oil companies to find alternatives either)
Not doing anything trying to find new oil while expecting some secret revolutionary energy source like nuclear fusion just to land on our laps in the next 10 years is folly.
I skimmed through that entire 5 page thread and all I got were impressions of how nice galveston beach is.
Google a map of active oil wells, drilling rigs, and pipelines that are within a 200 mile radius of Galveston. With blue water and clean beaches I bet there can't be many.
I couldn't say, one way or the other. a google search turned up nothing. I was responding to the above quote about huge issues at galveston beach as a result of offshore wells:
Sorry, was being sarcastic. The Texas and LA coast have roughly 6,000 wells/rigs off their shore. There are at least 3-4K wells/rigs in a 200 mile radius of Galveston and thousands of miles of pipelines. If drilling for oil = your beaches are fucked then Galveston Beach (and Grand Isle) should be more toxic than Chernobyl.
Not to mention the fact that more domestic production = less oil tankers (imports) from other countries offloading in that immediate area (which happens to receive the VAST majority of our oil imported from overseas).
ah - the myth of "but all those rigs withstood katrina, there is no risk...." - so it doesn't count as environmental damage unless a beach gets destroyed?
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused 124 Offshore Spills For A Total Of 743,700 Gallons. 554,400 gallons were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 189,000 gallons were refined products from platforms and rigs. [MMS, 1/22/07]
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused Six Offshore Spills Of 42,000 Gallons Or Greater. The largest of these was 152,250 gallons, well over the 100,000 gallon threshhold considered a ?major spill.? [MMS, 5/1/06]
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused 124 Offshore Spills For A Total Of 743,700 Gallons. 554,400 gallons were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 189,000 gallons were refined products from platforms and rigs. [MMS, 1/22/07]
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused Six Offshore Spills Of 42,000 Gallons Or Greater. The largest of these was 152,250 gallons, well over the 100,000 gallon threshhold considered a ?major spill.? [MMS, 5/1/06]
Still much less than a single tanker spilled.
And the vast majority of those spills were completely cleaned up by the companies before they effected the ecosystem. Hell, Grand Isle is some of the best fishing in the country.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter