Offshore drilling becoming an issue in Congressional races.

Republican challengers Rick Goddard and John Stone are giving John Barrow and Jim Marshall heck over offshore drilling. Barrow and Marshall claim they support drilling, but with “strict environmental controls.” Isn’t it “strict environmental controls” that have kept us from drilling thusfar?

After two years of getting pummeled by Democrats over President Bush’s handling of the Iraq war and the economy, the GOP says it finally has found an issue that will help it seize two Democrat-held Georgia congressional seats.

Republicans say they own the issue because they never have wavered in their support of offshore drilling.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released June 29 found that 69 percent of Americans support offshore drilling. The same survey found that only half the respondents believed expanding offshore drilling would actually lead to lower gas prices.

“This is the first time we’ve seen the base excited in a long time,” said Republican U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Grantville. “The Republican base was ready for somebody to stand up and say to the Democrats, ‘We’re not going to take it anymore.’ “

61 comments

  1. Icarus says:

    We’ve made a big deal over the last week about where Saxby and Johnny Stand (compromise), and Westmoreland and Price (Drill Now, Cutting off the lights isn’t going to conserve our way out of this).

    Where are the GA Dems? Where do they stand?

    Bishop?
    Johnson?
    Lewis?
    Marshall?
    Barrow?

    It’s time to get these guys on record. There hasn’t been a major accident from on offshore oil rig in 40 years. That was prior to putting a man on the moon, and about the time lap seat belts were the nifty new safety devices on cars.

    You may remember we had 3 catagory 4/5 storms in the gulf of mexico a few years ago. While some oil rigs were damaged, there was no major spill.

    It’s time we force these guys to define “strict environmental controls”, and that goes for ANWAR as well. Either you are for drilling or you’re against it. Voters have had it with the double talk.

  2. yellowb says:

    I can tell you David Scott officially opposes any sort of drilling. I had a letter sent from his office telling me exactly that. He said that we should not use this time as a reason to drill and ruin our economy. He has a “proud” record of voting against drilling and he will not support the current movement in support of drilling.

  3. sndeak says:

    I think we should look at it IF the oil companies will ensure that all the oil pumped out will be for US consumption only. The oil execs have already said they will export the oil out of ANWR. That doesn’t help us get off foreign oil.

  4. Dave Bearse says:

    Icarus:

    Can you enlighten me as to exactly what “this” from the “conserve our way out of this” you mean?

  5. Icarus says:

    Sure Dave,

    Cutting off the lights and the microphones in Congress, nor inflating all of our tires, will enable our country to gain energy independence.

    Your shot:

  6. And where is the study that says offshore drilling and opening up ANWR “will enable our country to gain energy independence”?

    Estimates for offshore drilling and ANWR production would have the total amount of reserves equal to about 3 years US oil consumption. If we had mandated just 1 mpg/year of CAFE increases over what was done from 1995 – 2007 when the Republicans controlled Congress we’d have used less oil equaling about the same amount as the total offshore/ANWR reserves. And on a year by year basis, we’d be using less than we’d get in any single year from ANWR or offshore drilling.

    But we’d still be importing oil. The truth of the matter is that until very recently, the offshore drilling ban was kind of meaningless. Oil industry researchers and executives have said that it isn’t profitable for them to explore and drill unless oil is above $60 a barrel, which it wasn’t until very recently. So absent any government incentives, the market wouldn’t and isn’t going to pay more for oil because it comes from the USA.

    Ultimately, this issue just exposes McCain for the phony he is. The dude’s been against this for years and switched his position when it started polling well because of circumstances beyond his control. If he’s some sort of hero for doing that, what makes you think Marshall, Barrow or any other Democrats couldn’t just do the same thing?

    If it’s such an obvious solution how come the term “offshore drilling” only had one Peach Pundit mention (in a comment by Harry in May 2007) prior to 2008?

  7. AtlConservative says:

    Chrishardcore,

    First, McCain openly admitted he was changing his opinion and stance based on the economy. Obama sort of changed, sort of stayed the same… Whatever, this is a moot point. They should listen to the voters who have to decide between food or gas because they don’t have enough money!

    Second, bad decisions have been made for years about energy independence. I don’t think anyone will argue otherwise. I alos believe people would agree we should have done something 10 years ago – so we maybe wouldn’t be in such a bad situation now.

    It comes down to – do we sit here and again do nothing and expect a different result in 10 years? Or do we start drilling AS WELL AS working toward other energy resources?

    Finally, I completely support Congressman Price et al in the argument that we offer a $10 BILLION reward for the person(s) that find a true alternative that does not increase our food prices, etc. By this I mean a true solution to the problem versus simply shifting the stress to another area.

    Let’s start drilling – the Chinese already are (and I would bet with significantly less environmental concern than we would)! Let’s work on true alternatives. Let’s focus on finding solutions instead of trying to tear everyone down about being wrong.

  8. Icarus says:

    “If it’s such an obvious solution how come the term “offshore drilling” only had one Peach Pundit mention (in a comment by Harry in May 2007) prior to 2008?”

    First, I posted on this on RedState well over a year ago. It’s only recently become a Peach Pundit issue as GA Republicans have taken the lead in both the House and the Senate.

    Regarding your question on how drilling guarantees our energy independence, it does not.

    A couple of months ago, I spent a great deal of time outlining a more comprehensive energy to start the discussion, and asked what Dems were willing to put on the table to compromise with Republicans. I myself favor an imported oil tax to help curb demand while we expand supply.

    I can’t remember what thread this was in, and it was hardly a world transforming treatise, but I’ll try to put some time in later today and revise it for another post.

    The overriding point here, however, is that Republicans are offering real solutions, and are (at least in the Senate) doing so in the spirit of compromise. What are the Democrats offering other than the same old tired rhetoric and promises of windfall profits taxes?

  9. GOPGrassroots says:

    Icarus is right on the money.

    GA Democrats are hiding from this issue and they must be held accountable for their stonewalling.

  10. IndyInjun says:

    As one who worked to get Barrow elected over the fake conservative Burns, I have to say that the Dems are inexplicably throwing away the gains that they made in seeking out moderate-to-conservative candidates in 2006 and this year by lining up on the wrong side of this issue.

    Barrow is hurting himself.

    Yeah, it is extremely doubtful that oil deposits within 50 miles of the coast will make a meaningful dent in the energy import equation, every barrel the USA can produce makes the nation stronger.

    Somebody needs to get the word to the DNC that they are blowing it with Indies like this one – BIG TIME. It isn’t that US oil production will save us, it is that this reminds folks like me of just how obstinately nutty the Dems can be, too.

  11. odinseye2k says:

    “The overriding point here, however, is that Republicans are offering real solutions, and are (at least in the Senate) doing so in the spirit of compromise. What are the Democrats offering other than the same old tired rhetoric and promises of windfall profits taxes?”

    Uh … the next generation of energy? A policy generated from a thinking center higher than the brain stem?

  12. Icarus says:

    “Uh … the next generation of energy? A policy generated from a thinking center higher than the brain stem?”

    = magic beans.

  13. IndyInjun says:

    Inflate the tires and light the fires from US gas and oil……in other words do it ALL and do it now……no one solution will work.

    The lives of us all depend upon it.

  14. Mad Dog says:

    Laughing. OH MY GOD this is funny.

    By the time we get any oil from the ANWR, if we get any, the Prudhoe Bay drilling will be long over.

    So for the Drill More, Drill Here, and Drill Now idiots who are playing footsies with Big Oil while C-SPAN is turned off, get over yourselves.

    Any oil found in the ANWR will not be enough to replace what will be depleted before production can produce the first gallon of gas.

    According to the Energy Information Agency … we have just about 504,000 holes drilled in the ground producing oil. That oil is being produced at an average of 10 barrels per day per well.

    The US does not have the type of oil fields of say … Kuwait. Kuwait retires a well as being unproductive when the daily yield falls below a 1000 barrels a day.

    Just to be sure that isn’t a typo. When a well fails to produce a thousand barrels of oil per day, Kuwait caps the well and takes it out of production.

    If your life is dependent upon US oil … you’re a dead man walking.

  15. IndyInjun says:

    Mad Dog,

    Are plans to convert the auto fleet to plug-in hybrids, which will exhaust electrical generating capacity and deplete the known reserves of nickel by probably ten multiples, any better?

    Those domestic barrels might be best deployed in the manufacture of plastics, but they are contributors.

    The US has the largest reserves of coal on the planet.

    It is time to liquify much of them.

  16. Dave Bearse says:

    Icarus:

    My apology for posing a question and forgetting to check back for a response until now…. and I’ve had a few cocktails…..

    Taking this thread in another direction, government subsidation of alternative energy production and alternative energy R&D should be minimal.

    Alternative energy is best left to an unsubsidized market. The only certainty about goverment picking and choosing alternative energy with subsidy is that those that influence government will get theirs.

    Energy costs should remain high if that’s what the market directs. Consideration should be given to maintaining high oil-based energy cost through higher taxes should oil costs fall (or oil-based enery cost be increased even further, cuttting other taxes generally in either case for revenue neutrality).

    The tapping out of a finite resource is more of a concern to me that the environment with respect to addtional drilling. Oil may not have an equal as an energy source in certain circumstances. Indeed it’s hard to imagine a substitute to oil-based energy for air travel, or some military operations.

    Oil companies like other companies are motivated by profit. They have no more reason to develop or invest in alternative energy any more than the market investment in general. In the meantime they get paid to drill and we’re to trust alternative energy sources or technology will be developed.

    One last energy-related comment…

    Truth be told (and forgive me if I’m repeating myself), falling oil prices at the end of a costly 40 year long cold war had as much to do with the fall of the Soviet Union as anything else (though Reaganites like to attribute it to Reagen solo). Increasing mititarism in Russia occuring concurrently with increasing oil prices over the past few years is no coincidence.

  17. Mad Dog says:

    Indy,

    It’s time to start walking to work, fire your personal trainer, get rid of the riding lawnmower, and take some freaken personal responsibility for your life.

    There’s not enough oil in the ANWR to make up for the sources that will be depleted in 10 years.

    Whatever oil is there, isn’t in a large ‘pool’ but several fields spread over a fairly large area. To extract ALL the possible oil will take as long as twenty years.

    The average annual supply over those years IF there is recoverable oil, won’t be spit towards “energy independence.”

    And, to smack you across the head just one more time, why the Heck E. Darn aren’t we drilling on the 40 million acres currently leased to Big Oil by the Federal Government?

    There’s an expected 40 billion barrels under lease in the lower 48 states on dry land.

    Whine and cry about your oil pimp not supplying your habit from those sources for a while.

    BTW, how many new wells were drilled last year?

    EIA says the industry drilled about 30,000.

    And … supply still fell.

    bye bye

  18. Icarus says:

    I’m very intrigued by Mad Dog’s concept that because U.S. existing reserves are running out, that we should not try to replace them with off limits reserves.

    I guess 8 years from now, we’ll all be riding Obama’s magic unicorns anyway, so we won’t need oil.

  19. IndyInjun says:

    Ic,

    Nope.

    Mad Dog does not understand that I really agree with him and probably so does Doug Deal, who understands the compelling energy density of light crude oil.

    The only known, undeveloped mega fields of this oil are on the Iraq/Iran border, Kazakstan, and the Russian Artic, all dangerous territory, as is the Orinoco basin heavy oil field. The Brazil field is practically inaccessible. These are the fields from which any expanded supply must come and said supply probably won’t offset supply decreases.

    What this spells out is RESOURCE WAR.

    Where MD and I differ is that I see no harm in folks with existing, low-output wells returning them to production as high prices make it profitable. This is a better allocation of capital than hail mary exploration where there isn’t any oil. No matter how many bills are passed, the oil companies ain’t going where there is a high probability of failure.

    Where the oil , and oil is LIFEBLOOD, is means it will be taken by force.

    Iraq was about oil.

    Chavez is figuring the US will invade for very good reason.

  20. Mad Dog says:

    Laughs.

    Icarius says, “I’m very intrigued by Mad Dog’s concept that because U.S. existing reserves are running out, that we should not try to replace them with off limits reserves.”

    Could you twist that just a little bit more? Naw, but go ahead and try.

    I’ll clarify it for you, Again.

    Drilling in Alaska or offshore will not provide energy independence or provide an offset to imports.

    10 barrels a day from our puddles of oil … and another 30,000 new wells each year … and no decrease in the amount being imported …

    Don’t forget there has been a well drilled in the ANWR, capped, and abandoned. Don’t forget it. No one is saying if they struck oil or not. Not a word. Very remarkable considering the number of people that had to work there. Not alleging a conspiracy. Just amazed that there aren’t any rumors that start out … my uncle Billy Bob’s half sister Dora who had the love baby with Elvis was working this oil rig in the ANWR … secret classified stuff and all … and they hit oil five feet under the snow. The Democrats flew in with attack unicorns and killed everyone to keep it secret. One of the unicorns took pity on Dora cause of her love baby with Elvis and that other thing we never mention…. The unicorn rescued her, well, it had to chew off one of her legs because of the gang green and frost bite. And, some of her fingers won’t hold a cigarette ever again so she had to go back to chewing tobacco…. but ever since the rescue, we’ve been seeing these strange hoof prints in the back of the house. We think something un-natural is going on but we ain’t saying nothing since that other, other thing we don’t ever mention in front of the D-O-G.

    But, anyway, those Democrats know she’s telling the truth about the oil and all. It’s there. Just under the snow all year round.

  21. Mad Dog says:

    shhhhhhh…. I am not connected to any conspiracy theory group, political party, or non-partisan organization with 527 status under US Code 1910.170 unannotated. I was never here.

  22. jsm says:

    “There’s not enough oil in the ANWR to make up for the sources that will be depleted in 10 years.”

    “There’s an expected 40 billion barrels under lease in the lower 48 states on dry land.”

    Actually, the EIA says there’s enough off-limits oil in the US (75 million barrels, conservatively) to replace non-North American imports for 22 years.

    “And, to smack you across the head just one more time, why the Heck E. Darn aren’t we drilling on the 40 million acres currently leased to Big Oil by the Federal Government?”

    MD, you’ve apparently bought into the emotional, baseless argument from the left.

    From Red Cavaney, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute:

    “These lawmakers ask why oil and gas companies want more access to federal lands to drill if they aren’t using all of the 68 million acres they already have? Anyone with even the most basic understanding of how oil and natural gas are produced – and this should include many members of Congress – knows that claims of ‘idle’ leases are a diversionary feint.”

    http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121391719487790187.html

    Educate yourself, and quit blowing smoke.

  23. Mad Dog says:

    Oh My God!

    You’ve kicked my butt by using a completely unbiased source on energy and oil exploration like the American Petroleum Institute.

  24. Mad Dog says:

    About those wells that are being allegedly drilled on leased lands in some great number …

    Exploratory wells drilled for crude oil in 1973 … 642

    Exploratory wells drilled for crude oil in last 12 months … 711

    An 11 percent increase in 35 years …

    Thank God we have the American Petroleum Institute!!!!!!!!

    (I love the irony in the numbers. 69. 69 more wells. We’re not even being screwed just 69’d)

  25. jsm says:

    MD, no source is unbiased. The point here is that the oil companies are utilizing the federal land leases to the extent that they are financially feasible. If a leased plot is found to be unprofitable, the lease contract still has to be paid for its duration. This straw man from the left about the millions of available untapped federal acres is really pitiful.

    It’s interesting that you mention an 11% increase in exploratory drilling in the last 35 years. How does that relate to a 40% drop in US oil production over the last 25 years? If Clinton had not vetoed ANWR drilling in 1995, we’d be producing about 20% more oil than we are today. Imagine if we added to that our known reserves 50 miles off of Florida’s and California’s coasts and the undisputed TRILLIONS of barrels of shale oil in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming?

    We’ve got to access these resources to keep ourselves in the game for the next few decades. If we don’t, one day our conquerors will.

  26. HLittle says:

    Mad Dog, In an earlier post you said the supply of oil still fell in spite of increased exploratory drilling. I find it hard to believe that supply fell under any circumstance. I mean the supply of oil that can be pumped not what is pumped. Seems hard to get true actual supply numbers on a commodity that is production controlled by a bunch of guys at OPEC. In other words any oil shortage is political, not geological. And whats the deal on energy independence, we don’t need to be energy independent as long as we can produce enough of our oil to have an effect on world wide pricing. And forget R&D subsidies on alternatives, some guy/girl working in the garage will invent the next new oil free mode of transportation, I just hope some pinheaded bureaucrat doesn’t close him/her down for working out of the garage without the proper permits. In the mean time lets drill anywhere we want but especially ANWR. We could have oil flowing in 24 months if the environmentals and the bureaucrats will get out of the way.

  27. Mad Dog says:

    jsm,

    Quite flipfloping!

    Is it:

    “Educate yourself, and quit blowing smoke.”

    or,

    “MD, no source is unbiased.?”

    Your sources are, in your studious opinion, good enough to try shouting me down. Until I shove your biased source back down your throat.

    Then, you’re all Mr. Reasonable that no source is unbiased?

    So much for your credibility.

  28. Mad Dog says:

    HLittle,

    I said, “BTW, how many new wells were drilled last year? EIA says the industry drilled about 30,000. And … supply still fell.”

    That would be the U.S. market supply in barrels.

    But, I have to ask, don’t you think pumping oil out of the ground reduces the amount left under the ground?

    MD

  29. Mad Dog says:

    HLittle,

    You said, “[w]e don’t need to be energy independent as long as we can produce enough of our oil to have an effect on world wide pricing.”

    That would be naive but I truly doubt you’re that naive. More likely misinformed.

    Back up a step or two and try defining energy independence and energy dependence.

    Dependence would sort of mean, you can’t control price, volume, or supply.

    Independence that the price, volume, or supply can’t be set by others.

    Now, try to determine an production amount, either in barrels or as a percentage of total U.S. demand, that would insulate us from world pricing fluctuations.

    Just an example. Would we need to produce 7.5 billion barrels of crude oil per year? Would we need to produce 95 percent of our consumption and only import 5 percent?

    In other words, where do you see the production threshold for insulation and isolation? Where on the production curve can we go it alone?

  30. Mad Dog says:

    Most federal leases have a percentage of production, not a flat monthly payment for the time period of the lease.

    Most oil men know that. Even the buttheads at the American Petroleum Institute.

  31. Icarus says:

    Mad dog,

    There was just an auction of leases last week. There is an upfront payment (almost a half billion was raised in the auction) as well as a royalty from what is produced, about 18% of gross revenue, if I’m not mistaken.

  32. Mad Dog says:

    Now we come to how much is paid via RENTS on undeveloped lands.

    From the CBO 1998, about $250 million dollars. WOW!

    What was the value of the oil in the market that year?

    The rents cover both gas and oil leases, so the total of gas and oil in 1998 was $17 billion dollars.

    1998 was a very bad year for the price of oil per barrel.

    I’m still looking for more current information.

    But, the royalty varies and average about ten (10) percent for 1998.

  33. Mad Dog says:

    43 percent of leases are producing (rounded to nearest whole number) 2007
    Total royalty for oil, $4,332,417,743.16
    Total of all rents for all minerals?

    $265,600,318.37

    So rents have not risen equal to inflation since 1998.

    Cry me a river for the poor oil companies paying rent on undeveloped lands….

    $265,600,318.37 in rents for all mineral leases on federal land in production year 2007.

  34. Mad Dog says:

    and, just for the funnies of it

    70,521,222 barrels of oil were produced on federal lands without paying a percentage of the value in royalty

  35. Mad Dog says:

    This table may not post. I won’t know until I try it.

    Oil and Gas Leases on Federal Onshore Lands: Noncompetitive Leases
    Customary Royalty Rate
    12 1/2% in amount or value of production.
    See 43 CFR 3103.3 – Royalties, and BLM Manual Part H-3103-1.
    Annual Rent and Other Fees
    Leases issued prior to 9-2-1960: $0.25 to $1 acre.
    Leases issued 9-2-1960 through 2-1-1977: $0.50 per acre.
    Leases issued 2-1-1977 through 12-22-1987: $1 to $2 per acre first 5 years,
    $2 per acre subsequent years.
    Leases issued after 12-22-1987: $1.50 per acre first five years, $2 per acre
    subsequent years if extended. See 43 CFR 3103.2- Rentals, and BLM Manual
    Part H-3103-1.
    Duration of Lease
    Primary term of 10 years: continued if capable of commercially producing.

  36. Mad Dog says:

    $2 per acre?

    WTF ??????

    Is that too freaken high when Exxon made $11 billion dollars in 3 months?

    Who’s upside down on this issue?

    Idiots.

  37. Mad Dog says:

    Let me give all you Pro-Drillers the thrill drill ..

    Federal sale 191, , May 2004, Cook Inlet, Alaska, had 2,219,000 acres for lease.

    NONE were leased. No bids were submitted.

    How much oil has been produced from Cook Inlet since the first discovery of oil?

    Over 1,225 million barrels and natural gas production tops 5,160 billion cubic feet.

    What about leases in the Beaufort Sea, just off Prudhoe Bay and the ANWR?

    “The Beaufort Sea is also the location of what are believed to be significant petroleum reserves beneath the seabed, a continuation of proven reserves in the nearby Mackenzie River and North Slope. The Beaufort Sea was first explored in the 1960s and the Amauligak Project of 1986 began operating the first functioning oil platform.”

    Seems like someone would want to buy those leases, eh?

    18 million acres were put up for auction in two sales, March 2005 and April 2007. One out of every 17 acres were leased.

    In total, 165,181,903 acres of federal lands have been offered for oil leases in Alaska since …. April of 1976.

    Only 9,584,686 acres were leased by oil companies for exploration.

    Can you do the math? Less than 6 percent is even being explored for oil.

    If you’re a Republican, and you think there’s oil in Alaska, hold up your hand.

    If you still think Alaska has oil bubbling out of the ground and those freaken tree hugging Democrats are preventing drilling, … then God help us all.

  38. jsm says:

    “Your sources are, in your studious opinion, good enough to try shouting me down. Until I shove your biased source back down your throat.”
    ——————————–

    “How about you, jsm?

    “Are you going to educate yourself or keep blowing smoke?”

    I find it funny that you rarely reference your quotes, so that many of your ‘sources’ are unknown. Plus, I gave you numbers directly from the EIA, which you say is the source of some of your info. So you don’t like the API–no surprise. They have no right to tell their side of the story, right? Fact is, I can back up everything I’ve said here.

    “Is that too freaken high when Exxon made $11 billion dollars in 3 months?”

    That number represents an ROI of 8%, far less than the 2007 ROI of Google at 25% or GE at 10%. Pardon Exxon for making a profit.

    “How much oil has been produced from Cook Inlet since the first discovery of oil?

    “Over 1,225 million barrels and natural gas production tops 5,160 billion cubic feet.”

    Great. How much is still down there? And what’s all this activity going on there?

    http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/products/maps/cookinlet/images/Cook%20Inlet%20Maps%202008/CI_OandG_ActivityMap_MAY08.pdf

    “What about leases in the Beaufort Sea, just off Prudhoe Bay and the ANWR?”
    ——————
    “Seems like someone would want to buy those leases, eh?”

    Straw man alert! Here we go again…

    Someone just might want to buy the leases, but the US Fish and Wildlife Service (read: “freaken tree hugging Democrats”) has been fighting them…

    http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/products/publications/beaufortsea/bsaw2008/bs-2008-supplement.pdf

    …and the leases won’t be available until October of this year.

    http://notes4.state.ak.us/pn/pubnotic.nsf/ca078608a902678a8925672a000206e1/2a345f5af810dfce8925749100821d4b?OpenDocument

    I also found this: “Leases also can get tied up in court, often over environmental concerns. Or companies can determine that developing a particular tract doesn’t make economic sense. Either way, they’re listed on the federal government’s books as “non-producing.”

    “Shell Oil Co., for example, is involved in a legal dispute in Alaska that prompted it to abandon a proposed course of exploratory drilling in the Beaufort Sea this summer. Shell has said it remains committed to offshore drilling in Alaska, but production is likely as far as 12 years off.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-07-20-2906660978_x.htm

    “In total, 165,181,903 acres of federal lands have been offered for oil leases in Alaska since …. April of 1976.

    “Only 9,584,686 acres were leased by oil companies for exploration.”

    The oil companies know which oil reserves can produce the best profit for them. Some are more expensive to pull out of the ground than others, and government is hindering a lot of exploration.

    Keep trying, MD.

  39. Mad Dog says:

    Nice effort at moving the goal posts, jsm.

    “That number represents an ROI of 8%, far less than the 2007 ROI of Google at 25% or GE at 10%. Pardon Exxon for making a profit.”

    Exactly what does ROI have to do with paying $1.50 an acre for a federal lease? Is a $1.50 going to lower ROI if $11 billion is 8% of investment.

    Try again.

  40. Mad Dog says:

    “In total, 165,181,903 acres of federal lands have been offered for oil leases in Alaska since …. April of 1976.
    I said that “In total, 165,181,903 acres of federal lands have been offered for oil leases in Alaska since April of 1976. Only 9,584,686 acres were leased by oil companies for exploration.”

    You said that: “The oil companies know which oil reserves can produce the best profit for them. Some are more expensive to pull out of the ground than others, and government is hindering a lot of exploration.”

    The government isn’t hindering exploration on over 165 million acres of Alaska. The oil companies can make $11 billion in three months by not drilling. Where’s the freaken hinderance by the government?

    Just saying the government is hindering exploration doesn’t make it true, jsm.

    Try again.

  41. Mad Dog says:

    jsm,

    Here’s a great sample of your backing yourself into a corner when you think you’re backing up your information.

    I said, “How much oil has been produced from Cook Inlet since the first discovery of oil?

    “Over 1,225 million barrels and natural gas production tops 5,160 billion cubic feet.”

    You said, “Great. How much is still down there? And what’s all this activity going on there?”

    Then, you show a map of ongoing drilling.

    So make up your mind. Is there oil still down there as your own source shows? Yes, which validates my point. Exploratory drilling on new leases isn’t happening in Alaska.

    Try again.

  42. Mad Dog says:

    You said, I also found this: “Leases also can get tied up in court, often over environmental concerns. Or companies can determine that developing a particular tract doesn’t make economic sense. Either way, they’re listed on the federal government’s books as “non-producing.”

    “Shell Oil Co., for example, is involved in a legal dispute in Alaska that prompted it to abandon a proposed course of exploratory drilling in the Beaufort Sea this summer. Shell has said it remains committed to offshore drilling in Alaska, but production is likely as far as 12 years off.”

    What does any of that have to do with anything?

    Is Shell being sued by Exxon?

    Did I list non-producing leases?

    No, I listed how many acres WERE NOT LEASED!

    Millions of acres of potential oil bearing lands have been offered for lease and Big Oil said, no way.

    Do you want an estimate of how many federal acres are producing?

    Less than 2000. Two thousand. Out of 165,000,000.

    So my point remains that drilling could be done now in Alaska on lands known to contain recoverable oil. It’s not being done. There’s no financial incentive for Big Oil to explore and develop new sources in Alaska. And, that’s why there’s no exploration in Alaska and that why the drilling of exploratory wells has only increased 11 percent in 35 years.

    Don’t bother trying again.

  43. jsm says:

    “The government isn’t hindering exploration on over 165 million acres of Alaska. The oil companies can make $11 billion in three months by not drilling. Where’s the freaken hinderance by the government?”

    Why argue when you contradict yourself? The USFWS and the EPA are hindering drilling by causing some leases to be considered “non-producing” and possibly be revoked when lessees are spending years trying to get permits to start work. And what does this have to do with Exxon’s profit?

    “Just saying the government is hindering exploration doesn’t make it true, jsm.”

    Proving it does.

    “No, I listed how many acres WERE NOT LEASED!”

    The whole point is that the Beaufort Sea drilling site referred to has been abandoned because of legal roadblocks. It may or may not be leased in October.

    Oil companies are not looking to lease land where they know they’re going to have to butt heads with our own government agencies that are trying to keep them from drilling there.

    “So my point remains that drilling could be done now in Alaska on lands known to contain recoverable oil.”

    My point is that government shouldn’t tell oil companies where they must drill. Whatever happened to freedom? Just because a piece of land has oil does not mean that oil is financially feasible to recover. “Big Oil” will drill where they can be most profitable, and their not looking for your advice.

  44. Mad Dog says:

    “The USFWS and the EPA are hindering drilling by causing some leases to be considered “non-producing” and possibly be revoked”

    What leases have been revoked and where? When? Revoked by who?

    What agency has the power to call a lease non-producing and revoke the lease before the 5 or 10 expiration?

Comments are closed.