Exxon begins drilling at Point Thomson in Alaska

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_exxon_point_thomson

ANCHORAGE, Alaska ? Exxon Mobil says it has begun drilling at Alaska's Point Thomson oil and gas field.

Patrick McGinn, a company spokesman, says drilling operations were launched Friday.

In February, Exxon returned eight of its Point Thomson leases that were part of 13 added to the field in 2002. Exxon had promised to drill wells and begin producing oil within four years, but no drilling occurred.

The state has been fighting with the Irving, Texas-based oil giant and other lease holders over the lack of progress there.

Alaska officials have tried to cancel the leases, but in January it did allow Exxon to drill on two leases after the company said it would start production within five years




I don't understand this. Is it saying Exxon had leases to land but were not drilling it, and Alaska had to give them a deadline to drill or else lose the lease/
Is it saying that an oil company was intentionally keeping its supply low?

 

[little elvis]

Could be a bunch of reasons....

Limited number of available Drill Rigs
Greater ROI drilling elsewhere
Difficult to produce formation

etc.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_exxon_point_thomson

ANCHORAGE, Alaska ? Exxon Mobil says it has begun drilling at Alaska's Point Thomson oil and gas field.

Patrick McGinn, a company spokesman, says drilling operations were launched Friday.

In February, Exxon returned eight of its Point Thomson leases that were part of 13 added to the field in 2002. Exxon had promised to drill wells and begin producing oil within four years, but no drilling occurred.

The state has been fighting with the Irving, Texas-based oil giant and other lease holders over the lack of progress there.

Alaska officials have tried to cancel the leases, but in January it did allow Exxon to drill on two leases after the company said it would start production within five years




I don't understand this. Is it saying Exxon had leases to land but were not drilling it, and Alaska had to give them a deadline to drill or else lose the lease/
Is it saying that an oil company was intentionally keeping its supply low?

They are probably afraid of the Obama administration either taxing the hell out of them for environmental damage, carbon release, or just plain 'excessive profits'.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_exxon_point_thomson

ANCHORAGE, Alaska ? Exxon Mobil says it has begun drilling at Alaska's Point Thomson oil and gas field.

Patrick McGinn, a company spokesman, says drilling operations were launched Friday.

In February, Exxon returned eight of its Point Thomson leases that were part of 13 added to the field in 2002. Exxon had promised to drill wells and begin producing oil within four years, but no drilling occurred.

The state has been fighting with the Irving, Texas-based oil giant and other lease holders over the lack of progress there.

Alaska officials have tried to cancel the leases, but in January it did allow Exxon to drill on two leases after the company said it would start production within five years




I don't understand this. Is it saying Exxon had leases to land but were not drilling it, and Alaska had to give them a deadline to drill or else lose the lease/
Is it saying that an oil company was intentionally keeping its supply low?

They are probably afraid of the Obama administration either taxing the hell out of them for environmental damage, carbon release, or just plain 'excessive profits'.

Sheesh, the Obama administration has been keeping Exxon down since 2002! No wonder people hate him so much! OMGSOCIALISM!

Anyway, I can see why Alaska wanted Exxon to 'use it or lose it' so to speak, considering how they profit from the oil industry up there. Having an oil lease remain idle when it is ripe for drilling hurts their budgets.

Besides, with the spike in gas prices we recently had, many would have been furious to know that Exxon was holding back supplies that they already had permission to drill. Remember the whole 'drill baby, drill' mantra during the last election? Exxon decided a while back instead to do just the opposite, drilling our collective wallets instead. /tinfoil

 

[cubby1223]

^^^

?

Nobody knew who Obama was in 2002 except for those in Illinois.

But that still doesn't make techs' assessment any more valid :roll: More likely environmental activists are putting up roadblocks.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
^^^

?

Nobody knew who Obama was in 2002 except for those in Illinois.

But that still doesn't make techs' assessment any more valid :roll: More likely environmental activists are putting up roadblocks.

Not likely at all.

Oil demand is expected to decrease throughout 2009 - after decreasing through 2008. Short-term active rig count is down nearly 50% from a year ago in the US - even greater declines in Canada.

Worldwide active rigs in production are down nearly 30%.

There is a glut of oil in storage and in tankers around the world - nearly a 2 month supply.

In reality, the State of Alaska is revenue-dependent upon oil production because of the state 25% tax on oil production.


Blame that on Obama and environmental roadblocks ?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: techs
I don't understand this. Is it saying Exxon had leases to land but were not drilling it, and Alaska had to give them a deadline to drill or else lose the lease/

Sounds like it

Is it saying that an oil company was intentionally keeping its supply low?

You're reading too much into it.

 

[Budmantom]

Sounds like prices are low and supply is high.........and Obama is a Socialist.

 

[kage69]

Not likely at all. Oil demand is expected to decrease throughout 2009 - after decreasing through 2008. Short-term active rig count is down nearly 50% from a year ago in the US - even greater declines in Canada. Worldwide active rigs in production are down nearly 30%. There is a glut of oil in storage and in tankers around the world - nearly a 2 month supply. In reality, the State of Alaska is revenue-dependent upon oil production because of the state 25% tax on oil production. Blame that on Obama and environmental roadblocks ?

Damn those pesky facts breaking up another good ol baseless Obama bash!

Bah!

 

[soccerballtux]

Bout time. How dare they provide a warm pipeline through Alaska which keeps the local wildlife alive.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Bout time. How dare they provide a warm pipeline through Alaska which keeps the local wildlife alive.

Amazing that wildlife survived for many thousands of years without that pipeline.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Bout time. How dare they provide a warm pipeline through Alaska which keeps the local wildlife alive.

Amazing that wildlife survived for many thousands of years without that pipeline.

Amazing the animals are thriving with the pipeline in place. Go figure.