America's untapped oil

[CptSternn]

Lawmakers lay into big oil for leaving million of acres untouched while at the same time asking to drill in Alaska and off the coasts.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil companies and many lawmakers are pressing to open up more U.S. areas for drilling. But the industry is drilling on just a fraction of areas it already has access to.

Of the 90 million offshore acres the industry has leases to, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, it is estimated that upwards of 70 million are not producing oil, according to both Democrats and oil-industry sources.

One Democrat staffer said if all these existing areas were being drilled, U.S. oil production could be boosted by nearly 5 million barrels a day, although the oil industry said that number is far too high and one government agency said it was impossible to estimate production.

Recent proposals to open up offshore coastal areas near Florida and California, as well as Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, might yield 2 million additional barrels, according to estimates from various government sources that also stressed the difficulty in making forecasts. The United States currently produces 8 million barrels of oil and other petroleum liquids a day and consumes about 21 million.

Oil companies "should finish what's on their plate before they go back in line," said Oppenheimer analyst Fadel Gheit.

Some Democrats also charge that oil companies are deliberately not drilling on the land to limit supply and drive up oil prices.

"Big Oil is more interested in pumping up prices and pumping up their own profits rather than pumping more oil," said Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass), who has co-sponsored a bill to charge oil companies a fee for land they hold that's not producing oil. "We should not even begin discussing handing over more public land to the oil companies until they first use [the land] they already hold."

But the oil industry says it pays millions of dollars for these leases, and that it would not make sense to purposely leave the areas untapped.

Rather, years of exploration is required before drilling can even begin. In some cases, no oil is found on leases they hold. In others, drilling the wells and building the pipelines takes years. It is especially hard now that a worldwide boom in oil exploration has pushed up the prices - and timelines - for skilled workers and specialized equipment.

"No one is sitting on leases these days," said Rayola Dougher, senior economic advisor for the American Petroleum Institute. "Those making those assertions don't understand the bidding and leasing process."

Gheit agrees that it's unlikely that hoarding is going on.

With prices at $135 dollars a barrel, everyone is trying to pump as much as they can, he said. But fearing oil prices will eventually fall, the industry is leery about making too many investments in the fields it has - many of which are in deepwater areas that can be pricey to develop.

Instead, they're holding out, hoping the government will open areas closer to shore that would be cheaper to work on.

The presumptive Republican candidate John McCain has come out in favor of lifting bans on oil-drilling off most of the East and West coasts of the United States. Added supply, the thinking goes, would ultimately bring down the price of oil. The bans were enacted in the 1970s following several coastal oil spills.

Critics say lifting the bans would do little to ease the nation's energy crisis in part because it would take years to produce meaningful amounts of oil, noting how much is currently going untapped.

Gheit hasn't seen the legislation proposed by Markey and others, but he thinks the government should revise the leasing process to encourage more drilling on existing areas before it puts more acres up for bid. To top of page

[CptSternn]

You have to love this mccain is right out of dock in the campaign pandering for big oil companies. They have the right to drill to 90 million acres, which they pay for, because those areas have been found to contain oil reserves. They of course, want the rights to the last 8% that are all protected wildlife refuges'. Why? Sheer greed. They aren't even using the other 70 MILLION acres of known oil reserves and want to take the last bit they don't own before tapping into the ones they do own.

And of course, as I previously stated, the new republican presidential candidate has as the #1 item on his agenda he is trying to push on the public - the selling off of these last areas to the oil companies.

Anyone else not surprised?

[Technowitch]

No, I'm not surprised either. Oil companies seem to have little care for their impact on the public, economy, or the environment; the Republican party backs big business over the working class and environmental concerns. It grates on me to no end when I hear people talking about how it would just be so great to lower gas prices by tearing up Alaskan wilderness for new oil rigs. Newsflash, gas prices aren't going to go down regardless of how much land companies drill on, since so many industrialized nations have a high demand for the stuff.

Here's the thing: if oil companies are so concerned about whether or not they'll be able to get anything out of the leases they already own, why don't they start researching alternative fuels that might be cheaper to produce and thus would turn a compareable profit at lower consumer prices? Oil is a finite resource anyway, and knowing this wouldn't it make more sense to diversify?

[Barfing_Rat]

This is making me sick! For years, majority of Americans have been pretty much very against drilling for oil in wildlife or on protected land. But now all suddenly almost everybody is up for it. Those people are so damn short sighted! They still really believe that once oil company start to drill in Alaska, the oil price will drop below $1 and they'll be happiest people in the world just because they can drive their huge gas guzzling tank again.

Unfortunately even if the price does drop that much, it won't stay there long. It'll just go back up to what it is at right now. People are just so damn spoiled! Also if alternative for oil is found, the price will NOT be that cheap either! It will be somewhere around just a dollar or even 50 cents under the gas price. Why? Because people who start business don't do it out of good will! They do it mainly to make profit! They know that they can get away with charging high price for the alternative. So they'll do it and get rich off it as well.

It is time for people to keep their mouth shut and their ears and eyes wide open and they may learn something useful. Anybody who really believe that they will be once again able to drive a tank and threaten everybody on the street and walkside without fear for so cheap may as well believe that Jesus is still alive and playing poker with Elvis on a remorse island somewhere in the world.

[Megansmom]

Researching alternative fuels is a great idea but we need oil now. Unfortunately , our own laws make it damn near impossible for alternative fuel sources to be profitable or even available any time soon.
It took a company 20 years to get permission to file an application to file an application to the EOC to look over its application for a nuclear plant and that can take up to 6 years and another 20 years to get approval to build the plant . So what 46 years to possibly build a clean fuel source? You get my drift tho about how stupid and how many roadblocks there is?
The military is already using an alternative fuel source. Coal to gas technology is made available to them yet congress couldn't be bothered less than 6 months ago to to pass a bill to subsidize a plant to be built and up and producing in an year. Why can they subsidize frigging ball parks but not that? Look at the jobs , the economic boast , and lower fuel prices we could have had.
As far as oil profits go , all companies are required by law to try to make a profit for there share holders. Say you owned stock in Peter Pan peanut butter and they weren't making money would you keep it or would you get pissed and try to sell it? Very little of there profit actually came from US sales from what I read it's less than 10%.It is a world wide commodity.
And out of these profits are where companies like BP, Exxon-Mobile and Marathon are putting billions into alternative fuel sources. You don't think they don't realize they have to expand but again thanks to our government sticking in there noses were not reaping yet.
As far as off shore drilling goes, China's getting ready to drill 50 miles off the shore from where I live. Do you think they give a crap about the environment? I would much rather have a company that's going to abide by the laws of our country for environmental protection so if there is a spill or problem of any other sort they will fix it.
Actually , Alaska is suing the US government for the right to drill oil in there own state. The people in Alaska say it's there right to drill on there land and provide jobs, money for the state and provide some much needed oil. They want to do there share as they say.
And just a note oil prices went up 2 more dollars a barrel today because Americans have cut down there gas use. Isn't that lovely.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Megansmom

Researching alternative fuels is a great idea but we need oil now. Unfortunately , our own laws make it damn near impossible for alternative fuel sources to be profitable or even available any time soon.
It took a company 20 years to get permission to file an application to file an application to the EOC to look over its application for a nuclear plant and that can take up to 6 years and another 20 years to get approval to build the plant . So what 46 years to possibly build a clean fuel source? You get my drift tho about how stupid and how many roadblocks there is?
The military is already using an alternative fuel source. Coal to gas technology is made available to them yet congress couldn't be bothered less than 6 months ago to to pass a bill to subsidize a plant to be built and up and producing in an year. Why can they subsidize frigging ball parks but not that? Look at the jobs , the economic boast , and lower fuel prices we could have had.

Your behind the times here. First, coal is not an 'alternative' fuel - its a finite fossil fuel just like oil which produces the same greenhouse gasses.

As far as the 'laws', who do you think lobbied the US government for those laws? Why do you think the government keeps them there when there is an energy crisis? Blaming 'laws' and at the same time saying its not the governments fault is pretty silly.

As far as oil profits go , all companies are required by law to try to make a profit for there share holders. Say you owned stock in Peter Pan peanut butter and they weren't making money would you keep it or would you get pissed and try to sell it? Very little of there profit actually came from US sales from what I read it's less than 10%.It is a world wide commodity.

The US oil companies have all made record profits in the past 7 years, each year breaking the previous years record. Exxonmobile made the largest profits for a company EVER in the history of mankind last year. You really think with profits that dwarf all other industries that lowering prices a few cents would actually hurt their shareholders? As long as there is no incentive to do so, your right, they won't. As long as the government allows them to gouge the public, then they will continue to do so at record rates.

And out of these profits are where companies like BP, Exxon-Mobile and Marathon are putting billions into alternative fuel sources. You don't think they don't realize they have to expand but again thanks to our government sticking in there noses were not reaping yet.

You really have missed a lot. You should check out our electric car and water powered car threads. In fact, you really should check out a film called 'who killed the electric car', because it goes into this topic in detail. I don't want to spend a whole thread retyping what has already been said in other threads but here is the short and skinny of it - those companies are researching alternative energy sources like hydrogen powered cars. In fact, the US government is paying them. Sounds nice, unless you look at the whole picture - the US government stopped funding of electric alternatives and other alternatives that were showing progress in efforts to keep those methods from hitting the market. Hydrogen is at least 20 years off. Electrics are hitting Asia and Europe in the next two years, but America won't see them, well, until the US government and the oil companies stop trying to block their usage. In fact, South Africa is rolling out cars that run on compressed air and will have those out well before Americans ever see any new 'alternative' fueled cars.

As far as off shore drilling goes, China's getting ready to drill 50 miles off the shore from where I live. Do you think they give a crap about the environment? I would much rather have a company that's going to abide by the laws of our country for environmental protection so if there is a spill or problem of any other sort they will fix it.

There are so many things wrong with that statement, where should I start? Because one country acts badly, that makes it ok for another to do the same? Should America stone women who show their ankles just because another country does? More importantly your assumption that America somehow has a better track record when it comes to environmental protection. America has one of the worst track records, and since bush took office it has gotten worse. We have a few threads on this, so again I won't go into too much detail, but google SUPERFUND or read about how oil companies who are involved in spills have all been granted clemency by the bush admin recently.

Actually , Alaska is suing the US government for the right to drill oil in there own state. The people in Alaska say it's there right to drill on there land and provide jobs, money for the state and provide some much needed oil. They want to do there share as they say.

Alaskans already get $1,200 a year from the state from the oil profits. They are the only state that pays their residents with funds made from natural resources. A majority of people living there work for the oil industry. What do you think they are going to say to more free money in the job they are already doing? If Californians want to shut down their beaches to turn them into toxic waste dumps, should they allow that so the residents there can make a buck?

And just a note oil prices went up 2 more dollars a barrel today because Americans have cut down there gas use. Isn't that lovely.

Again, your missing the big picture here. Your thinking with what I like to call an American Mind. It no longer matters what Americans do in regards to oil. If every American stopped using oil for a WEEK, it wouldn't affect prices in America at all. Oil is a commodity sold on the open global market and is in high demand worldwide. Oil companies are international conglomerates who do business worldwide. As I said in yet another thread on Oil right now in the POLITICS section, think of buying oil like buying something on eBay. Lets say you think the price of something on eBay is too high, so you don't buy it. Do you really think that effects the buyer at all if 10 other people are bidding on that item, just because you do not? By not buying oil or using less it just means people in India, China, or another nation are going to buy a bit more that week and the price of oil in America stays the same.

[IgorVGoth]

I tend to see the Democrats and Republicans as members of the same team. They'll both cave in to those who finance their trek to the white house.

[Anonymoose]

Capt. Sternn is actually right about how oil industries are playing the game. It's not about making profits right now.

An oil company DOES NOT CARE about its country. If you were an insanely wealthy international person, you really think you'd give a shit if America or any other country for that matter starts having its people suffer?

America falls, the oil tycoons will just move to another place of the world.

The loop hole with the United states is that the United States Government appeals to the those that can afford it. That's why oil industries can exploit EVERYONE and get away with it. Try to have an uprising against an enemy with no real corporeal body to attack.

It is a war. But it's not done so through violence and force, so much as it's done so with the power of ownership. The more you own, the more every government in the world is going to protect YOUR right to own what you have.

To have an uprising against the oil industry would do nothing but bring down the law on the people who fight it because all you can do is attack places of business and businesses have no place in conflict. You're not attacking the real problem, you'd be attacking the people who have a right to run a successful business.

The problem is, there's nothing to ensure that anyone is going to behave ethically, save for the person themselves.

So long as the oil industry has this much of an influence economically, they will forever own you through the power of money. Their tactics for the compliance of the people will be the use of hunger, of withholding. They don't even have to use guns or force. All they have to do is deny you the things you need. And they do it and they can do it. People in small towns right now are taking out LOANS for gas AND groceries.

[le_revenant]

How 'bout they look into the amount of oil slapped on the hairdos of politicos, and the legal beagles who constitute lobby and political action committees? That could probably constitute enough oil to rival what drunken tanker captains dump into Alaskan waters when they crash their boat!

I don't trust those who advocate drilling into natural areas, which supposedly hold large untapped oil reserves, any more than the clowns advocating "clean coal".
Use of coal as a resource always conjures up visions of Victorian London choking on smog.

If Americans want to see a drop in gas prices, the most effective thing they can do is cut back on the dependency. That oil companies raise prices and see Americans willingly pay that higher cost does not compel them to aim towards lowering the price.
Why lower the price when you KNOW your cash-strapped clientele will pay the higher price?

[CptSternn]

Another interesting fact that was brought up by commentators on MSNBC yesterday...

Did anyone else know America exports more than 10% of the oil it produces in America?

Thats right, American companies, producing oil on American soil from American sources export OVER 10% to Asia/India due to demand.

The higher the demand, the larger the amount they sell to other countries each month.

I find that odd, considering bush and the oil companies want to drill in coast waters and protected areas to 'find' more for America, yet they are selling off over 10% thats already there to other countries in the name of higher profits.

In fact, the amount they claim they could produce if they were able to produce if they drill in protected areas is LESS than the amount they are currently selling off to other countries.