In congress...the fight to drill

[Prince Valiant]

This is kind of cool...sadly it won't amount to much, but it's cool none-the less

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0808/House_Dems_turn_out_out_the_light_but_GOP_keep_tal king.html?showall

Basically its a run-down of what happened today and tonight at the house of represnetative.

Basically it's like the old "Mr. Smith goes to washington" and is a pretty good read. Some republican reps tried to force the issue of off-shore drilling to a vote, to which the dems said, No go, No vote.

Why no vote? Because Pelosi and crew didn't want the dem congressmen/women to go home and justify WHY they voted no (it's true...had the measure came to vote, there is NO doubt that it wouldn't have passed).

Why do it anyway? T force the debate. Get people talking about it, and see if some political will one way or the other forms.

Hopefully this "stunt" helps that still come about.

But it does show that the dems really DO care little about the energy needs and prices, and how it affects the common man, but the US as a whole. They'll SAY they care...but don't want to justify their reasons (which are pretty shody anyways) to the opposition of domestic oil production.

If you didn't know, when asked about it, Pelosi did say she was fighting AGAINST drilling simply because she's, in her words, "...trying to save the world; I'm trying to save the world"

Of course, by ensuring that we don't drill here in the US, more must be drilled elsewhere....if the world environment REALLY was her concern, she WOULD want us drilling....why go with some third world place drilling with NO enviro standards, frequent spills, high likelyhood of sabotage thus giving the world supply instability. I mean, what, doesn't THAT harm he environment Nance? Here in the US, a massive category 5 hurricane hits our offshore drilling facilities and hardly a drop of oil is lost...whereas in Nigeria they recently shut down two pipelines due to sabotage (causing a mild price spike :mad: )

Because, what happens over there doesn't affect the "world" Nance :rolleyes:

I say, show your support for off-shore and ANWR drilling. Write not just your congressman, but the newspapers too. Tell some random dude at the mall about it...whatever.

Democrats aren't beholden to their supposed base of poor and middle-class workers...niether group can support the dems with donations/contributions. No, the Dems kowtow to the wealthy libs whose wives are "concerned environmentalist" and the Sierra Club, greenpeace, etc. It's not lost on me that MY rep (gwen moore's) response has thus far been absent...I WILL be finding her at a town hall meeting or something so I can press her on the issue. Seriously, you should too.

[05caddyext]

Your topics/responses are to detailed. No one cares. You know the real problem? "They" say its a supply/demand problem. Ahem. Last time I went to the gas station, they had gas. The time before that, they had gas. The time you went to get gas, they had gas. There is no shortage. Hasn't been a shortage in a long time. Democats plan = drill in the already leased land. Republicans = drill in new places. Better plan = Watch the movie "Who killed the electric car." GM had an electric car years ago. Some old dude made an awesome battery that lasted longer than anyone would ever need to drive. Blah Blah Blah. Who the FK cares? You don't want to buy gas? Ride a FKING bike. Don't Vote. Nobody gives a FK. You think all of a sudden in 2008 politics is just going to "work itself out"???? Best bet is to just kill yourself and find out that "God" doesn't exist either. Then come back and sue your local church when you get reincarnated. Ain't that a Btch.

[05caddyext]

The democrats, (I am not one) want to make the oil companies drill on land they already currently own/lease. I believe the number of acres is 39 million. Yeah, 39 million acres of land that is currently owned or leased by oil companies. On those sites, there is an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil, enough to supply the U.S. for 14 years. Why aren't they drilling there? Who knows. But it does seem like a good question to ask. Why allow oil companies to explore in new areas, including offshore near the U.S., when they already have so much unexplored land under their control. Next time you go on vacation to California do you really want to be staring at some monstrous drilling rig sitting out in the ocean? I sure don't. The real answer to bringing oil prices down is to use less. Its really that simple. How many people on this site own more than 1 car? I do. Well there you go.

[shoooo32]

oh snap!

Actually, some of us do enjoy valiant's long winded posts. He doesn't always share my point of view but they're well written and and don't include sentences like "well there you go." or "best bet is to just kill yourself..."

[Yooformula]

Sorry but I like his informative posts. We cant just live off of your opinion either. We havent run out of gas but at the rate we are going it will eventually happen. If our reserves are greater than any other foreign country, why not use it rather than blow our cash supporting them? MOST of us have more than 1 car and we cant all afford to blow $500 a month on gas!

[johnny--2k]

Agreed. Your post is useless really unwarranted. I love reading his posts. They are informative, well thought out, and usually spot on except for the occasional small points I may disagree on, but otherwise, I don't have a problem with them. I think you are the only one here who does.

Nice job Chris!

[Karps TA]

I don't think Caddy is saying don't drill here. He's merely stating that oil companies can drill here, they have land they can drill on, that had oil under it. But they don't. Maybe cause it's more difficult, maybe cause it's all just a bunch of crap. But until oil companies come out and say why they are not drilling on land they already have leases to drill on, then it's not just 1 side at fault.

I've said it before. Oil companies do not want cheap oil. They fact that oil is so expensive is why they are making record profits every single quarter. Drilling here hurts their profits. So they will put up a front that they really are trying to drill domestically, but big old mean congress won't let them. When they can drill here, as Caddy said, they have like 39 million acres of leased land that has oil and they haven't been using it. Heck there's plenty of smaller oil companies that would love to get those contracts and drill on them, but the big companies won't let them.

It's just a big shell game.

[Lash]

Your topics/responses are to detailed. No one cares. You know the real problem? "They" say its a supply/demand problem. Ahem. Last time I went to the gas station, they had gas. The time before that, they had gas. The time you went to get gas, they had gas. There is no shortage. Hasn't been a shortage in a long time. Democats plan = drill in the already leased land. Republicans = drill in new places. Better plan = Watch the movie "Who killed the electric car." GM had an electric car years ago. Some old dude made an awesome battery that lasted longer than anyone would ever need to drive. Blah Blah Blah. Who the FK cares? You don't want to buy gas? Ride a FKING bike. Don't Vote. Nobody gives a FK. You think all of a sudden in 2008 politics is just going to "work itself out"???? Best bet is to just kill yourself and find out that "God" doesn't exist either. Then come back and sue your local church when you get reincarnated. Ain't that a Btch.


:rolleyes:

[Prince Valiant]

Thanks guys! It's a good thing I checked this thread before I jumped off the Hoan Bridge! :rolf:goof

But as far as the "shell game" of leased lands:

First off, it's not 39 million, but 69 million. Compare that to the total ANWR space of 19 million. And from THAT 19 million, we are only focused on a portion of the northern slopes, that's roughly 1.4 million acres. And consider, from that 1.4 million acres we are only looking at a space to drill that'd take up roughly the size of Mitchell Int. Airport.

So not only are we talking a smaller area...therefore removing the need to spend 100 million drilling for each hole you'll drill in the ground trying to recover at numerous/spread across the US sites, instead doing it a couple times in a VASTLY smaller area....BUT, the amounts are vastly different too. Best estimates on those 69 million acres? 3.5-4.8 billions of gallons of recoverable oil. The amount recoverable from the teeny/tiny plot of land? 9.8-15.5 billion....and some estimates are putting it in the 30+ billions perhaps.

So the dems want us to purposely be inefficient with our resources guaranteeing that it'll be more expensive and less profitable.

One of the big lies that irks me is that "big oil sits on these lands, not letting smaller companies drill...so they can drive out the little guy and drive up the price at the same time." It sounds nice to the conspiratorial ear, but doesn't mesh with the facts at all....let's look at it:

1. Big oil actually doesn't own the most lease, though they have significant portions. Much if not most are owned by specialized exploration and drilling companies...companies that make their money BY drilling. If there is oil in amounts it pays to drill for, why wouldn't they? A significant sum IS leased by the "little guys" (400 different companies hold these leases to the 69 million acres...another 121 hold the off-shore leases. There are 400 some "big oil" companies? Me thinks not!)

2. No one sits on the lease...a lease is a lease. In these cases, they are 10 year leases...if they don't produce, the land is returned at the end of the lease. Because a lease hasn't run out, doesn't mean you're "sitting" on it. You payed for the right to explore, and it didn't pan out.

3. That none of the land is being developed...it's true that the lands aren't producing at this moment. But that doesn't mean it's not getting developed...the portions of land that are determined to have viable amounts worth developing ARE being developed...but as stated ad nauseum, it takes 7-10 years to get these producing. In the 90's, it didn't pay to go after these sites...but since oil has skyrocketed, it has...they are working furiously to get them producing.

4. And that there is some sort of "giveaway" being implied...oil companies big and small pay billions to lease these lands from the gov't. If they think it's worth an exploratory drill, they do...and sometimes only come up with a 100 million dollar dry hole. If they find nothing at these sites, that was money pissed away, never to be returned.

But then there is the topic of SUPPLY. We have PLENTY of supplies they say...and it's true! we do! Problem is, when it comes to oil and pretty much EVERY raw/semi finished, highly consumable products (steel, corn, electricity, OIL)...it's not how much is out there...it's the rate of production versus the rate of consumption.

Put it this way...let's say that we had 500 septillion (numerically represented as either 5^26 or better yet, 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 just for the nerds of us out there) barrels of oil in reserve...you could say the supply is such that it should be free, right? But, if we are only producing 100 barrels a day against a 80,000,000 barrel a day demand, the stuff would be worth more than a direct touch and divinity from God himself.

At the current moment, we are actually producing a little less than 1-2 million barrels less than we demand worldwide, hence the skyrocketing price. ANWR alone can deliver an estimated 1.4 million a day helping to offset that amount, helping to stabilize the price.

But this is where ANWR reigns supreme over the other sites...it's daily production capacity. While we could expect over a million barrels a day from one site for as long as 20 years, these little sites wouldn't come close to producing that amount....or for as long.

Listen, oil companies are the expert at what? Drilling oil/producing/refining oil. Democrats? Not so much...bloviating certainly. Why the HELL would we want democrats managing our oil flow when they have little CLUE how basic economics work, much less a vastly complex industry that operates on razor thin profit margins?

The "shell game" is the ones the Dems play...trying to get people to continue to buy the " vast corporatist conspiracy" to just make the little guy pay more at the pump. It's populist tripe, and frankly disgusting how many buy into it.

BTW, telling me I'm long winded is like stating the skies blue...you aren't telling me something I don't already know....and care little about.

[Al]

So not only are we talking a smaller area...therefore removing the need to spend 100 million drilling for each hole you'll drill in the ground trying to recover at numerous/spread across the US sites, instead doing it a couple times in a VASTLY smaller area....BUT, the amounts are vastly different too. Best estimates on those 69 million acres? 3.5-4.8 billions of gallons of recoverable oil. The amount recoverable from the teeny/tiny plot of land? 9.8-15.5 billion....and some estimates are putting it in the 30+ billions perhaps.

4.8 billion gallons is about 16 gallons per person in the 300 million US citizens. What will that do to prices? (do you mean daily production)

The country is in a dilema: The democrats are also more concerned about global warming than the price of fuel when it comes to drilling. (stalemate)

[Prince Valiant]

4.8 billion gallons is about 16 gallons per person in the 300 million US citizens. What will that do to prices? (do you mean daily production)

The country is in a dilema: The democrats are also more concerned about global warming than the price of fuel when it comes to drilling. (stalemate)we're talking barrels...of which ~42 gallons of gasoline come from a barrel iirc.

1.4 million barrels a day comes to roughly 65 million gallons/day, which, by your reasoning works out to only 0.2 gallons per citizen/day. Thing is, not all 300 million drive...so it's a rather meaningless statistic.

With regard to prices...it's consumption versus production. The US consumes on average 20 million barrels a day and the world consumes about 83 million/day, but only produces ~ 82 billion....by producing another 1.x million barrels, it goes along way to making up for the global shortfall on production....which is about 1 million less barrels versus what we consume...and if oil production continues to fall faster than the rate it can be "conserved", it'll get worse...which is why YES, conservation/efficiency IS part of the answer...but as the world economy grows, more supply of oil is needed. Fact is, we need to produce more as the current sites decrease production.

[Z28Roxy]

we're talking barrels...of which ~42 gallons of gasoline come from a barrel iirc.

1.4 million barrels a day comes to roughly 65 million gallons/day, which, by your reasoning works out to only 0.2 gallons per citizen/day. Thing is, not all 300 million drive...so it's a rather meaningless statistic.


Keep in mind oil is used for more than just driving.

[Prince Valiant]

Never-the-less, global consumption vs production is still the key. To focus on drivel such as that is a good obfuscation, but of little factual value.

[Z28Roxy]

Never-the-less, global consumption vs production is still the key. To focus on drivel such as that is a good obfuscation, but of little factual value.

Not really.

I was trying to bring it to light that you can't just start figuring Americans (or Earthlings) use x amount of gallons per day driving, so we should be using y amount of barrels per day. etc.

That said, yes, we do need to produce more oil and conserve more. Alternative energies are probably a very good idea too because I don't know if oil will become significantly more scarce in my lifetime than it is now or not.

I am somewhat weary of tapping our own reserves too much though. It's better to be the last person with oil than the first person.

[Prince Valiant]

I was trying to bring it to light that you can't just start figuring Americans (or Earthlings) use x amount of gallons per day driving, so we should be using y amount of barrels per day. etc. And I was simply pointing out that I wasn't figuring how much we use driving (~70% for transportation fwiw)...consumption of barrels refer to ALL the products we derive from oil. You're right...we can't simply say we are burning X in our tanks though, hence I didn't make that point.

The problem with not using our own supplies is that it puts us in great peril. And it's not that we actually have to USE our supplies if the need is not there...but it's nice to have the infrastructure there when it's needed. California is a case in point...if they allow expansion of off-shore drilling, CA can be producing more oil within the year, due to the presence of equipment in place already from previous wells that were since capped during the price bust in the 90's.

Let's not forget...this IS a national security issue. Opponents of ANWR drilling have made a VERY persuasive and true case that we cannot in short time begin extracting our own supplies...this means failure to act NOW leaves us in peril to some unexpected drop-off in production (say saudi arabia was attacked and it's oil fields disabled? Or key shipping lanes in the middle east are effectively blocked? It's happened before), so we need to prepare and invest NOW in our own drilling/producing capacity. We already know right NOW that the world thus far is incapable of supplying world demand...Our profit driven companies will temporarily cap off if the price plunges, thus preserving our supplies and maintaining the infrastructure to produce in the future.

[SSDude]

Keep up the great sharing of truthful knowledge Chris.:thumbsup
It's very entertaining when people go off without thinking things through.

BTW I want to be there when you put Gwen useless Moore on the spot about drilling.

Facts and logic rule:headbang

[Prince Valiant]

I haven't found any info on town hall meetings :mad:

[Al]

we're talking barrels...of which ~42 gallons of gasoline come from a barrel iirc.

1.4 million barrels a day comes to roughly 65 million gallons/day, which, by your reasoning works out to only 0.2 gallons per citizen/day. Thing is, not all 300 million drive...so it's a rather meaningless statistic.

With regard to prices...it's consumption versus production. The US consumes on average 20 million barrels a day and the world consumes about 83 million/day, but only produces ~ 82 billion....by producing another 1.x million barrels, it goes along way to making up for the global shortfall on production....which is about 1 million less barrels versus what we consume...and if oil production continues to fall faster than the rate it can be "conserved", it'll get worse...which is why YES, conservation/efficiency IS part of the answer...but as the world economy grows, more supply of oil is needed. Fact is, we need to produce more as the current sites decrease production.

A 1.1% production deficite causes prices to increase by 40%? :(

[ND4SPD]

Better plan = Watch the movie "Who killed the electric car." GM had an electric car years ago. Some old dude made an awesome battery that lasted longer than anyone would ever need to drive.

Let's talk about this for a moment. So apparently the impetus behind rounding up all of the EV1s and crushing them after their leases were up (because they only leased them, they weren't sold) was due to some GM-Big Oil conspiracy? And of course it had nothing to do with GM not wanting to continue producing parts or be on the hook for any potential recalls for a vehicle that had such a limited production run?:rolleyes: Well I guess that worked out well for GM seeing as how they're on the verge of bankruptcy while companies like Exxon are turning a whopping 10% profit margin. Keep in mind that movie was hardly an *unbiased* work.

[Z28Roxy]

The problem with not using our own supplies is that it puts us in great peril. And it's not that we actually have to USE our supplies if the need is not there...but it's nice to have the infrastructure there when it's needed. California is a case in point...if they allow expansion of off-shore drilling, CA can be producing more oil within the year, due to the presence of equipment in place already from previous wells that were since capped during the price bust in the 90's.


I know exactly about the places in CA you're speaking about. Stupid "not in my backyard" BS.

The problem is it will be a national security issue until the wells run dry, as I don't think we'll ever be a net exporter. There's more involved than just drill more, because that will only help for so long. Then we'll repeat this cycle again and be looking into shale oil, alternative energy, and/or deep sea drilling.

[Prince Valiant]

A 1.1% production deficite causes prices to increase by 40%? :(
On the futures market, yes...easily.

The "try-to-be-short" version is this:

In the futures market, you buy a product now because you believe it'll be worth more in the future so you can make a profit, simple right?

People speculate on the price because of what they can see....in this case, demand for oil WILL go up...but what about production? If they think it can't keep pace with demand, then they correctly predict the price will go up in the future.

So buy X number of barrels now and sell for a future profit.

Here's the thing...Say the price was 75/barrel when you figured this, but you see it at 200 next year...that's a sizeable profit...so you go to buy.

But you weren't the ONLY one who sees this future occurrence...so you're competing with other bids. By the time you buy X barrels, you and the others bid the price up to 140/bucks per barrel. The reason there are all these oil tanker ships floating around, full of oil is due to speculators buying and holding to sell.

That is the "spot" price.

This isn't a bad thing...because the price went up sharply like that, you ensured future supply by two ways:
1. You drove people to using less to save money, hence ensuring future supply
-and-
2. You spurred people to go and develop/explore more due to the price increase.

If it wasn't for gov't meddling, I bet alot more farmers would plan growing corn next season to take advantage of the higher price.

Without the futures market, once that critical shortage did hit (which imo, we are near at this point), then the price becomes astronomical...if we still were consuming oil at a rate like we do at 75/barrel, and then hit the point of sharp production fall off, prices would hit 300/barrel easily...so the futures market in effect helps to protect against shortages.

Here's the thing, if the market "sees" conditions for increased production, especially greater than demand, then less to none will invest in it on a "futures" basis...If people see the current price at 150 now and think it'll be 100 in the future, then NO ONE will buy...thus the "spot" price will drop...quickly, hence a "bubble burst". No one will put bids on oil to hold for the future....this means that the supply of oil being pumped out of the ground goes direct to market...heck, even then some due to the fact that the oil that had been bought to hold for a future market will be sold off too, decreasing the price even further.

And yes...there are far longer explanations.

[Al]

On the futures market, yes...easily.

The "try-to-be-short" version is this:

In the futures market, you buy a product now because you believe it'll be worth more in the future so you can make a profit, simple right?

People speculate on the price because of what they can see....in this case, demand for oil WILL go up...but what about production? If they think it can't keep pace with demand, then they correctly predict the price will go up in the future.

So buy X number of barrels now and sell for a future profit.

Here's the thing...Say the price was 75/barrel when you figured this, but you see it at 200 next year...that's a sizeable profit...so you go to buy.

But you weren't the ONLY one who sees this future occurrence...so you're competing with other bids. By the time you buy X barrels, you and the others bid the price up to 140/bucks per barrel. The reason there are all these oil tanker ships floating around, full of oil is due to speculators buying and holding to sell.

That is the "spot" price.

This isn't a bad thing...because the price went up sharply like that, you ensured future supply by two ways:
1. You drove people to using less to save money, hence ensuring future supply
-and-
2. You spurred people to go and develop/explore more due to the price increase.

If it wasn't for gov't meddling, I bet alot more farmers would plan growing corn next season to take advantage of the higher price.

Without the futures market, once that critical shortage did hit (which imo, we are near at this point), then the price becomes astronomical...if we still were consuming oil at a rate like we do at 75/barrel, and then hit the point of sharp production fall off, prices would hit 300/barrel easily...so the futures market in effect helps to protect against shortages.

Here's the thing, if the market "sees" conditions for increased production, especially greater than demand, then less to none will invest in it on a "futures" basis...If people see the current price at 150 now and think it'll be 100 in the future, then NO ONE will buy...thus the "spot" price will drop...quickly, hence a "bubble burst". No one will put bids on oil to hold for the future....this means that the supply of oil being pumped out of the ground goes direct to market...heck, even then some due to the fact that the oil that had been bought to hold for a future market will be sold off too, decreasing the price even further.

And yes...there are far longer explanations.

I do have a grasp on the futures market concept, buy that's well put.

What do you think about pulling oil off the commodities market? I heard something about congress trying to do something like that.

Also, isn't it possible for speculators to place only 5% down on oil?

[Prince Valiant]

What do you think about pulling oil off the commodities market? Personally, I think very poorly of it...it makes PERFECT sense to manage a commodity like oil with the future in mind, which is what happens...forseen shortages result in higher price/decreased consumption/pushes for more production of whatever may be consumed so it lessens future shortages.

It's like this...the market gives us the warning now to increase production...if the futures market/speculation wasn't playing a part driving the price of oil up nearly 100%, then when the actual shortage got here, we'd REALLY would be hurting. Now we can develop the wells and production capacity...to meet said future demand.

Look, due to the speculation people ARE consuming less, changing purchase decisions, etc...but due to population and economy growths, oil will still be important. Plus, without federal prompting, it's also spurned many to work on development of alternative energies and cause for a greater push from the general market for said alt. energy.

As much as it's sucked so far (and the near to somehwhat near future), the market is doing EXACTLY as it should.

[Al]

I saw the potential to hijack prices back when it was still $0.89/gal. It simply made sense. I was just hoping that more would be done about it by now.

I guess Obama changed his position on drilling. He could be a bit of a flip-flopper on this, but I'm guessing that the Democratic Party has put some pressure on him to change his stance. Even democrats like drilling, knowing how much of the working class votes lefty.

Valliant:
Aside from our vastly differing perspectives on UHC, you are probably one of the most resourceful and agreeable people on this board.

[SSDude]

I guess Obama changed his position on drilling. He could be a bit of a flip-flopper on this, but I'm guessing that the Democratic Party has put some pressure on him to change his stance. Even democrats like drilling, knowing how much of the working class votes lefty.
As usual the democrats who claim to be for the working people are on the wrong side of a common sense issue. The same way they are on the wrong side of natural global warming. The position they are taking will inflate energy costs and the price of all goods and services for everyone in this country. Meanwhile they will be blaming the republican for that as well.
Obama will flip on any issue to get a vote. His core values like all democrat leaders are extreme socialism and those values can be abandoned at a moments notice for a vote.
NOBAMA! Keep the Change





Valliant:you are probably one of the most resourceful and agreeable people on this board.
Very True:thumbsup

[Al]

Obama will flip on any issue to get a vote. His core values like all democrat leaders are extreme socialism and those values can be abandoned at a moments notice for a vote.


But what if it was pressure from general democratic voters that forced the change. Change happens to both republicans and democrats.

Vague Question:
Now I don't want to sound like a socialist, but do you think that a left shift (extent undefined) in government could possibly benefit the US population in certain ways that a right shift (to a lesser degree than the left) would not?

Some Irrelevance:
I think that Doyle's democrats have really fked up the perspectives of the Left by the Right here in Wisconsin.

[Cjburn]

As history has bore out for all people to see, a move to the left sometimes helps temporarily, (New Deal, Great Society) but in the long run it causes so much misery and suffering by the people that it eventually worsens the problems it sets out to cure and causes even larger problems in the long run.