Of course, like most of the other Democrat policies, the high price of gasoline and other elements critical to their lives, the regressive nature of them cause more hardship to the  "poor" than anyone else.

Republicans just generally do a lousy job of articulating this (most of them anyway)

How much would increased domestic drilling decrease gas prices, and how long with it take for those decreases to happen?

Where do you propose we drill? Offshore? ANWR? Colorado shale?

All of the above mattloch, all of the above, really anywhere its at. I think the estimates are at like 7 years for ANWR. not sure about others.

All you mention (although Colo Shale is really not drilling) and then some.

And the prices will drop immediately as a large part of it is due to speculation.

It is a canard that prices won't drop until production is  "on-line"

I know you don't like hearing that -- the more we are in economic  "free-fall" the better it is for Dems (but not the country)

We also should be bringing on more nukes. Know who is blocking that?  (Greens, Dems)

Obama is against more Nuclear Power Plants too BTW.....

It is estimated that there are significant reservoirs of oil shale beneath the Bakken's 200,000 square miles (520,000 km²). There were first discovered in 1951, but have long frustrated efforts to extract oil. An April 2008 USGS report estimated the amount of technically recoverable in the Bakken Formation at 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels, with a mean of 3.65 billion.^[2] The state of North Dakota also released a report that month which estimated that there are 2.1 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in the Bakken

It is one of the things our old bud Kozy was right about.

Enhanced drilling, well control, and recovery is in order.

If Kozy gets rich in the bargain...... its still a ....... bargain!  ;-)

As far as just current CRUDE estimates: 

The greatest Bakken oil production comes from Elm Coulee Oil Field, Richland County, Montana, where production began in 2000 and is expected to ultimately total 270 million barrels. In 2007, production from Elm Coulee averaged 53,000 barrels per day — more than the entire state of Montana a few years earlier.^[13]

New interest developed in 2007 when EOG Resources out of Houston, Texas reported that a single well it had drilled into an oil-rich layer of shale below Parshall, North Dakota was anticipated to produce 700,000 barrels of oil ^[14]. This, combined with other factors, including an oil-drilling tax break enacted by the state of North Dakota in 2007,^[15] shifted attention in the Bakken from Montana to the North Dakota side. The number of wells drilling the North Dakota Bakken jumped from 300 in 2006^[16] to 457 in 2007.^[17] Those same sources show oil production in the North Dakota Bakken increasing 229%, from 2.2 million barrels in 2006 to 7.4 million barrels in 2007.

http://www.freerepublic.com...

And this is just one of the fields we already know about. Outer Contintental Shelf has more poetential yet (viz latest Brazilian discover off their coast) -- We can let China drill 50 miles off our coastline but we cannot........ makes perfect sense. More about the North Dakota-Williston Basin Area:

http://www.nextenergynews.c... 

 

 

Where do you propose we drill? Offshore?

Not offshore Florida. Bush saw to that.

Obama is against more Nuclear Power Plants too

Ignorance abound.

http://www.commondreams.org...

 

"Believes

nuclear power

should continue to be a part of the U.S.'s energy mix." From this site  http://www.grist.org/featur...

A posters reaction to Dave Roberts rebuttal to Newt: 

"New drilling and production technologies have drastically reduced the environmental impact of drilling operations.  Both the frequency and size of oil spills are down dramatically. Oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico took direct hits from both hurricanes Katrina and Rita with no major oil spills. Companies like Petrobras have little problem drilling offshore of the beautiful beaches of Brazil or in the Amazon.  Norway, one of the most environmentally conscience countries in the world sanctions drilling off its coast and in sensitive arctic regions like the massive Snovhit gas field.

DR displays a glaring lack of knowledge about how markets work.  Supply and demand of crude oil are in balance. There are no shortages of either crude or gasoline. Two factors are primarily driving the price of oil today, a weak dollar and a perception of shortages in the future. Which is causing speculators to bet "long" on crude.  Less than 10 years ago crude was selling below $20 per barrel.  At the time OPEC had between 2 and 3 million barrels of excess crude capacity. Demand growth and lack of investment has worked off that surplus.  

If the US opened additional lands for exploration, like the 1002 area, the market would need to acknowledge the potential for several million barrels of crude oil supply to be available.  Prices would come down - immediately.  

A lease sale in the 1002 would generate as much as a billion dollars in premiums which could be used to fund alternative energies or conservation programs.  It would be a win both for environmentalists and for US consumers.

 

They *MIGHT* come down slightly in ten years.  Given the situtation *NOW* and the past trends, I wouldn't bet it.  And we'll have squandered the opportunity to do something more effective, conservation, that *WOULD* take effect now.

.

Drilling will do nothing to the dollar.

For people that really know Obama's fence straddling position re nuclear power (unlike the  "ignorance abounds" example TSM) he is bad news for nukes (stall....stall.... stall....talk...talk....talk....nothing gets done and the industry knows it......

BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S PRESUMPTIVE STANDARD bearer, is not a proponent of nuclear power. He has said so publicly. Then again, he is not opposed to nuclear power. He's said this publicly, too.

Like a subatomic particle in quantum mechanics, Sen. Obama has been able this primary season to be in two places simultaneously when discussing nuclear energy. His has been a masterful piece of political legerdemain. He's appeased both the nuclear industry, which continues to line his campaign's pockets, and the environmental community, which fetes him as an enviro-warrior.

Planet Gore

Obama can fool some of the people (TSM, etc.) but not those that are objective.

Back when I worked in SCAN at Texacos field we rubbed elbows with a few of the geo boys..A common belief among them is that there is still a signifigant amount of oil down there but the problems we face with the sand and depth of the wells are a major obstacle in retriving those pools..Our fields aren't dead we just need more inventive ways to step up production..

You said Obama was against building nuclear plants and you were shown where Obama supports it.

You're a liar, plain and simple.

 

soiux~check your e mail....I think your right there,it's a matter of method/cost/profit~ ain't  it always?

TSM I went on Obamas website and it doesn't say anything about Nuclear energy, why not?

He said on that you tube clip we should explore it but then put it no where in his plans, what gives? He did take the oportunity to attack a sitting vp, but Nuclear energy is not one of the things he talks about doing, other than this one instance when he siad he would explore it....

No too strong if you ask me...expecially for someone not to include Nuclear endergy on his endergy policy. Maybe he just is saying one thing but will do another...like rezco,Wright, trinity, johnson, aires etc....

Before you call someone a liar you should understand that syaing one thing one day and 180 degrees diferent the next does not make the statements you selectively pull up true. Therefor, disagreement with same cannot, by definition be a lie -- just not what you want to hear.

So I would posit that you are the liar. You and your messiah -- whose doublespeak you so readily parrot (selectvely redacted and parsed of course). You wouldn't know a lie if it bit you (providing it came from your side). Ergo your railings are meaningless to any objective observer.

Having said that oh sycophantic Obamaphile, you should do some research on the subject (as opposed to your mindless remonstrations about prevarications; viz:

Massive Oil Reserves In U.S.Going Untapped

  Why are we not utilizing all the oil available to us in the U.S as prices hover at 110 dollars a barrel? Why do we want to punish the oil producers? Why have we not built new refineries and limited the number of gasoline blends to reduce the price at the pump? The common thread in any answer is the Democrat party and the loony environmental left. The folks that talk about energy independence but who do absolutely nothing to make it happen. So when you are paying 4 dollars a gallon this summer thank your local Democrat Congressman I know I will be thanking my local man Mike McIntyre the blue dog who is Nancy Pelosi’s lap dog. Check out the article below from IBD Editorials. It discusses the recent release of the expected size of the oilfields below ND and MT. Anyone who votes for any Democratic candidate in the face of stories like this deserves the government they get.

The Democrats' Shale Game
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, April 11, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Energy: A North Dakota field holds at least 4 billion barrels of oil and possibly much more. But its Democratic senator demonstrates his party's schizophrenia on energy, preaching independence while doing nothing to achieve it.
The price of crude hit a record $112 a barrel last week, just about the time the U.S. Geological Survey released its assessment of the oil and gas potential of a region known as the Bakken Formation.
The USGS estimates that the shale formation straddling western North Dakota and Montana contains 3.65 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil.
The oil is trapped in a thin layer of dense rock nearly two miles beneath the surface. The USGS estimate may be conservative and is based on current technology.
Leigh Price, a USGS scientist, authored a study before his death in 2000 estimating that the entire formation, which extends into Saskatchewan and Manitoba, may hold up to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil, an amount that dwarf's the 16 billion barrels in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
The technology to retrieve it is sophisticated. Rather than sitting in large underground reservoirs, the oil is trapped in microscopic pores of rock, and companies must force pressurized fluid and sand into the earth to break the pores in the rock. The extraction technology and production process also is not cheap.
In a press release announcing the study results, North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan said:
"The substantial amount of oil that it estimates is in the Bakken Shale should attract significant new investment to this region. This is an exciting time for North Dakota's oil industry. We're going to see new growth that will boost our economy and help our country shed its dependence on foreign oil."
Apparently there aren't many pristine areas or caribou in North Dakota.
This is a senator who has opposed drilling in a tiny portion of ANWR's frozen tundra.
He and his fellow Democrats also oppose new oil production in the Outer Continental Shelf and off the Florida coast where China and Cuba are gleefully setting up rigs 50 miles from Key West.
Wouldn't oil development there help just as well?
Dorgan and his fellow Democrats support a new "windfall profits" tax to punish the oil companies for high gasoline prices that are due in large part from their restrictions on domestic supply. They also support an "Ending Subsidies for Big Oil" act.
Just where do Dorgan and his ilk think the technologies to exploit fields like Bakken come from? Hint: It starts with P — as in profits, about which our money-printing Congress knows little.
Yes, oil companies make money. But they spend more than they make on finding new sources of oil. A new Ernst & Young study shows the five major oil companies had $765 billion of new investment from 1992 to 2006 compared with net income of $662 billion.
Over the same stretch, the industry — which includes 57 of the largest U.S. oil and natural gas companies — had new investments of $1.25 trillion compared with a net income of $900 billion and a cash flow of $1.77 trillion.
This is an industry that has redefined innovation, reinvesting profits to find innovative ways to recover oil and gas wherever they find it. This includes fields once considered "dead," vast tracts miles beneath the ocean surface, and sands or even shale in North Dakota.
In Pennsylvania, which holds its presidential primary April 22 and where America's first oil well was drilled in Titusville in 1859, there's a layer of rock similar to Bakken called the Marcellus Shale.
Researchers at Penn State estimate that Marcellus contains 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, roughly twice the amount consumed in the U.S. last year.
Pennsylvania Democrats must choose between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom oppose getting crude from Bakken or gas from Marcellus, or anywhere in the U.S. or its offshore waters.
Energy independence? The Democrats are standing on it.

 

Perhaps because you're lousy at searching websites, BS?  Thirty seconds to find this

http://www.barackobama.com/...

 

Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon

􀂾

generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we

eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear

without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and

waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S.

Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear

power plants.

There's absolutely no reason why we can't be stepping up R&D on getting automobiles which use renewable resources down to an afforable price for the consumer. 

 

Drilling for oil in new locations will only put a bandaid on a cut to a major artery.

 

We should also be working with the Canadians on better technology to extract oil from the tar sands.. it'd be a temporary fix until we get renewable resource auto's down to a reasonable cost, and if done right, would be less ecologically damaging.

sycophantic Obamaphile?? CHICO!!!   hahahaahhahahahahahahahahah whew..'pause for a breath' Mawhahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha ah

argghhh bring me my pills Ethel..

I'm old enough to remember the terrible spill off Santa Barbara.

That was back in 1969, and it took twleve days to cap the leaks. The link provides a history and breakdown of the bird life devestated by the spill. Given the shelf nature and earthquake activity in the state, a modest plate shift off the coast, in all probability, would spell disaster. Not my recipe for moving forward.

Check out this car to see what the country really needs to get behind, breaking up the big three and allowing innovation like this to hit the market.

adam~ That's my second hometown and that was one huge mess,the stuff came up in clumps on the beaches,the devastation was terrible...plus call me strange,but the sight of an oil platform right off the beach sorts ruins the aesthetics...thanks for that link.

 

On nuclear energy: Last December in Iowa, a young woman asked Obama, "Are you truly comfortable with the safety of nuclear energy?"

He responded, "Let me tell you that I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal; so I am not a nuclear-energy proponent."

Then last month in Miami, he told a largely Hispanic audience, "We'll assess the opportunities and risks of nuclear power in the hemisphere by sitting down with Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Chile." He called for a Department of Energy program to "share technology" with the countries.

Barron's energy columnist Jim McTague heard dueling statements and asked Obama's spokesman for a clarification. The response was, "I think you are reading too much into the speech." O-kay.

He's straddling the fence on this one only because he has taken so much $$ from the nuclear energy lobby............

Do they make em for bad backs?? JK

potential their bud potential

Chico, you still didn't answer my questions. How much would the supplies decrease prices (a percentage drop will be acceptable- say, X% drop for every Y amount of oil that hits the market; then how much will come from each new field), and how long would it take for those decreases to show up (how long to get production started in each new field)? I know that the shale recovery isn't lagging because of Democratic (or environmental) obstruction, but technological difficulties in getting it out, and because the price of oil didn't make it financially viable (until now). And just because something is "recoverable" doesn't mean it is viable.
 

Oh, and your BS story about China and Cuba? GOP Claim About Chinese Oil Drilling Off Cuba Is Untrue

I went on Obamas website and it doesn't say anything about Nuclear energy, why not?

Because as RF demonstrates, you're too ignorant to know how to navigate a web site.

And I'm not the bit surprised you fell for the China-Cuba lie.

You're such a tool. Or as they're better known, a useful idiot.

 

Random, TSM.  Oscama said nothing about EXPANDING Nuclear energy. He wants to study it to death. There are already safe ways to handle spent fuel.  As usual you far left loonies are, like Oscama, using smoke and mirrors along with lies to try to prove your point.  This is the tactic you use consistently.  Those of us with good sense can see right through you.  Keep up the good work.  As with Oscama, by November, if McCain can get him to debate Oscama will be toast.  All talk and no substance.

 

That's the key Roy. The LLDO's (Low Level Dem Operatives)   {like guess who?} will parrot diatribes from their esteemed messiah (all talk {form} no substance, call everyone who brings up the duplicity of said messiah a LIAR, and declare off limits talking about:

HIS WIFE

HIS PREACHER

HIS GRAMMA

HIS FRIENDS & ASSOCIATES

HIS UNCLE(S)

HIS SPIRITUAL ADVISERS

HIS EXPERIENCE (OR LACK THEREOF)

HIS VOTING RECORD

And now (it appears) ----

HIS DUPLICITOUS OR ISSUE SKIRTING OBFUSCATIONS ON ANY TOPICS RELEVANT TO ACTUAL POLICY!

Must be nice to have a ready and willing cadre of name calling slogan slinging simpering sycophants at the ready to tamp down any real look at what he says (and subsequently actually does) ----

SWEET! (for him -- too bad for people who want real answers)

Mattloch, do you really think he will move forward with nuclear energy projects? If so I know a guy out at the Auto Mall (replete in his sartorial splendor with de rigeur white shoes, white belt and a Titlist straw hat) who has a great deal on a little used Saturn that'll get you 50 mpg and never need maintenance -- ever!

(He will swear to it)

As far as your questions Mattloch, it is obvious you have no understanding of the spot market and futures market for crude and what is really fueling the recent run up. Let me in turn ask you -- does it make sense to rely on the old saw "well, even if we start to try and exploit our own resources, it will take so long to make a real impact, we should just do NOTHING and rely on talk (Obama forte) and carp, carp, carp ...... in the interim no drilling, no enhanced exploitation of our own plentiful reserves (in any form) -- Yeah that's the ticket! Lets do NOTHING except talk about vaporware and smugly presume that we are forcing the market toward said vaporware -- Bril...........

The very DAY that our  "leaders" come up with a serious plan to drill ANWR, outer Continental shelf, put some incentives to increased recovery of Bakken, incentivize shale in Colorado, sands in Montana, go forward with nuclear power, etc...... THAT DAY, PRICES WILL TUMBLE. FUTURES WILL FALL AS FAST AS THEY'VE GONE UP IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS -- SEPT AND FORWARD DELIVERIES...... (and THAT my pipe sucking friend is a real answer unlike your Maggiesque C&P jobs from  "diplomts sworn to  "secrecy" ---

You don't want a solution -- you and yours just want to yak about it -- After all... that's what you are good at.

WHAT BTW, IS YOUR PLAN OH MESSIAH MINION MANIFESTATION?

EXECELLENT POST ROY!!! Looks like you can still put dem fires out eh Chief??

And Mattloch (Messiah Minion of Mediocrity) -- here is your  "proof" positive that China is not gearing up to drill offshore Cuba -- Ha! You are a joke!

China's Sinopec oil company does have an agreement with the Cuban government, but it's to develop onshore resources west of Havana, Pinon said. The Chinese have done some seismic testing, he said, but no drilling, and nothing offshore.

Western diplomats in Havana tell McClatchy that to the best of their knowledge, there is no Chinese drilling in or around Cuba.

"I've never heard anything about this," said one diplomat from a country in the hemisphere.

The Western diplomats, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media about energy issues, said they believed there is no new drilling occurring off the coast of Cuba, just exploration.

BWAHAAAAAAAAAAA!

GOOD  "PROOF" BUDDY.......... (again, about that Saturn in Automall, its a steal!)....... ROTFLMAO!

Hey! the  DIPLOMATS don't know anything about it........ (sworn to anonymity of coors) HOW MUCH MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED? HAAAAA! Get a new pocket protector and propeller for yer beany, weanie......

CHICO Somwhere in there you forgot  His afilliation with Gay Rights..butt thats ok I still give you an A for substance

Sioux -- Mattlochs or Obama's?

BWAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

The guy (either one) has NOTHING!

I guess if we told him if we planted tobackky fer his pipe, it wouldn't bring the price down right now, but if we DIDN'T plant, the futures mkt fer tobaccy would go through the roof -- based on speculation in futures mkt  -- he would just stare in slack jawed pipe-lipped  drooling disbelief and say -- ITS A DAMN LIE!

He is a locally  "educated"  (making a leap there) self-proclaimed (with lame FAIL FAIL FAIL retorts) local yokel  "board guru" with his only real world experience in front of a keyboard shuffling paper. His  "debating" career at BC was probably the last vestige of truly creative thought he ever had a real world purchase on BTW..............

What else would we expect?

The problem as I see it is that people either want a FIX right now..or they sit back on their laurels and procrastinate about how it should be..And do absolutely NOTHING..Neither one is productive...Huge problems like our enrergy shortage wont get fixed in a week or even by next year..all I know is somebody needs to get off their tuckit and get this Bucket movin Race before it slams in a  wall and everybodys walkin around huntin berrys again

The Dems don't want a solution. Not a real world solution. They trade in vaporware and talk, talk, talk....carp, carp, carp.

The turtle who sticks his head out in a real world fashion runs the chance of getting it lopped off....

They'll have NONE of THAT!

Better to fall back on yakkin & procrastination and just let (as Mattloch would posit) things FAIL FAIL FAIL!

Past is prologue.

"Why do we want to punish the oil producers? Why have we not built new refineries and limited the number of gasoline blends to reduce the price at the pump? The common thread in any answer is the Democrat party and the loony environmental left. The folks that talk about energy independence but who do absolutely nothing to make it happen. So when you are paying 4 dollars a gallon this summer thank your local Democrat Congressman "

 

 

4 dollars a gallon?? where I need a fill up!! by the way hows hay prices out in your neck of the woods?? are they climbing yet??

As far as the  "obscene profits" scenario the Dems put forth, they wouldn't know the difference between EBIT and:

Did you say "HAY" Bartender?

Yes, oil companies make money. But they spend more than they make on finding new sources of oil. A new Ernst & Young study shows the five major oil companies had $765 billion of new investment from 1992 to 2006 compared with net income of $662 billion.

Over the same stretch, the industry — which includes 57 of the largest U.S. oil and natural gas companies — had new investments of $1.25 trillion compared with a net income of $900 billion and a cash flow of $1.77 trillion.
 

TSM, ML, RF, et al:

Do you know the difference between:

EBIT and ORBIT (Wrigley's)?

RONAE and Mary Tyler Moore's friend?

ROR and Tony the Tiger?

Thats what I thought.............

¿¿sí heno dominan al hombre, todavía abajo alrededor de 12 dólares?? ¿y hows el moho en las balas?

Well SCR, as you well know, it all depends on the kind of hay (I must apologize if ya got a bum steer on someone I used ta do bidness wif) but I wish I had every pole barn I got piled to the roof with bales...... for this next year........

And I wasn't sure about the moho -- if it was meant what is in the hay or in me lead boolet molds esse  ;-)

favor de estar más claro  ;-)

 

Well Mattloch -- I am now waiting for your explanation of how futures market (let alone the spot market for Crude) works and why, with a tangible solid plan for further exploitation of our own resources set in stone, the price of oil futures (and thus anticipatory pricing at the pump) won't fall?

{chirp..........chirp........crtickets conversing}

To all the  "lets talk about it and do nothing" Obamaminions ---

China, Cuba reported in Gulf oil partnership

http://money.cnn.com/2006/0...



Is China Really Drilling Off Cuba?


Yesterday Florida Senator Mel Martinez said that China drilling off the coast of Cuba was merely an urban legend. So because we here at the Neal Boortz Show are so incredibly fair and balanced ... we have tried to get to the bottom of this mystery. Here's what we found. All the way back in 2004, China's Petrochemical Corporation known as Sinopec signed a memorandum of understanding with Cuba's national oil company, known as Cupet to explore four oil blocks in Cuba. Keep in mind that both of these companies are owned by their communist governments. China's Sinopec conducted six months of geological studies of the four Cuban blocks. This was the first attempt by Sinopec, China's second largest oil and gas company, to enter oil and gas exploration and production in Cuba.
Then in 2005, China's Sinopec signed an agreement with the Cuban government to jointly produce oil in Cuba off the coast of Pinar del Río. Ok so let's get this straight. The governments of China and Cuba enter into a production sharing agreement ... what exactly does that mean? This is when the Cuban government awards the execution of exploration and production activities to an international oil company like Sinopec. The contractor bears the mineral and financial risk of the initiative and, when successful, recovers capital expenditure and costs incurred in the year (cost oil) by means of a share of production.

http://freerepublic.com/foc...


The Cuban government is to allow China to station 12 oil rigs in its waters in the Gulf of Mexico.

Fidel Castro's government has stepped up work on 36 new oil wells in partnership with Chinese and Canadian companies, officials said on Thursday.

The Cuban government is generally silent about oil matters, but this week Communist Party newspaper Granma also reported that Cuba had drilled its deepest oil well yet near Varadero, east of Havana.

http://gatewaypundit.blogsp...



This is not news of coors. It started in 2003-04. They may not actually be drilling yet but they are certainly are gearing up for it. But lets place craniums firmly in sand and enjoy the beach (from secure position with 4th point of contact ready for China, all comers  {our  "friends" according to ML, TSM, RF, et al} to rape us and our reserves......

Chiwannabe, what can we do`? we have elected officals we trust to do what is best for us. We trust them, Oh what can we do....

Exxon to exit U.S. retail gas business

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp said on Thursday it is getting out of the retail gas business in the United States as sky-high crude oil prices squeeze margins.

 

Those branded service stations may be the most public aspect of Exxon's business, but they account for a small part of the company's profits.

 

Out of the roughly 12,000 Exxon Mobil branded stations in the United States, Exxon, the world's largest publicly-traded oil company, owns about 2,220.

 

Exxon plans to sell those service stations over several years. They include about 820 stations that it also operates.

 

The company will maintain the Exxon and Mobil brands, Exxon spokeswoman Prem Nair said.

 

Consumers will still be buying gasoline at stations that carry the Exxon and Mobil names, but they will not be owned by the company.

The real money in O&G biz is made on E&P side not R&M (or even co. owned stations in the day)

Transfer pricing E&P to R&M -- that's where the money was

Once we started importing 60% from others, that side of the  "obscene" profits biz pretty much went bye bye

Of course refining's 8 to 10% ain't bad but there's an awful lot of sunk cost being amortized therein......

Ever hear of DD&A Mags, ML, RF, TSM?

Therein lies the true profit pic -- you have to know if you're lookin at tax books, financial books, 10-K, investor relations' Annual Report  "books" or what though......

As with any biz fundamental analysis, the devil is in the details (just like gopher and CAFR) -- you have to look into the footnotes to the financials -- therein lies the strue story -- what kind of accounting convention is used e.g. successful efforts, relative sales value, BTU value, DD&A, etc. to generate the pro-forma's you are looking at......

gopher coulda been a CPA BTW.... kudos again........

Of course its all just a lie...............

http://www.iht.com/articles... 

 

Why drill when we have reserves that will last for a year or more? 

Chico: "As far as your questions Mattloch, it is obvious you have no understanding of the spot market and futures market for crude and what is really fueling the recent run up. Let me in turn ask you -- does it make sense to rely on the old saw "well, even if we start to try and exploit our own resources, it will take so long to make a real impact, we should just do NOTHING and rely on talk (Obama forte) and carp, carp, carp ...... in the interim no drilling, no enhanced exploitation of our own plentiful reserves (in any form) -- Yeah that's the ticket! Lets do NOTHING except talk about vaporware and smugly presume that we are forcing the market toward said vaporware -- Bril..........."
 

You're looking at a lead time of at least seven years, perhaps even ten, for ANWR to become productive. Colorado oil shale looks to be "twenty years out", just like it was thirty years ago. The futures market won't drop until at least a year before production starts, mainly because there are so many problems developing new fields that until production can be reliably gauged the markets won't respond. (BTW, it was because of the spot markets that California had natural gas shortages a few years back, not because of any actual supply problems. Just goes to show how easily the system can be manipulated without tampering with actual production.....)

The answer to the current problem is conservation. Since when do conservatives not like saving money? If we had increased CAFE standards seven years ago instead of late last year we could have reduced domestic demand by far more than any increase we could be seeing today by drilling in ANWR.

"The very DAY that our  "leaders" come up with a serious plan to drill ANWR, outer Continental shelf, put some incentives to increased recovery of Bakken, incentivize shale in Colorado, sands in Montana, go forward with nuclear power, etc...... THAT DAY, PRICES WILL TUMBLE. FUTURES WILL FALL AS FAST AS THEY'VE GONE UP IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS -- SEPT AND FORWARD DELIVERIES...... (and THAT my pipe sucking friend is a real answer unlike your Maggiesque C&P jobs from  "diplomts sworn to  "secrecy" ---"
 

There's absolutely no evidence for that. Not a single reputable expert that would say that. Because they all know that the potential supply from ANWR would do little to slack demand in this country (assuming that's where it would head, which isn't what I've read.)


The futures market is out of control, just like the recent housing market. Investors are "flipping" futures, taking recent gains and investing it all back into the market with outside influence (demand) mattering little in the overall futures prices. You are completely insane if you think Sept. (2008) deliveries would tumble if Congress opens ANWR (with it's 7-10 year lead time).

BTW, the price of oil is at least 20-35% inflated because of the Iraq war. That is complete speculation, and has nothing to do with supply or demand.

Chico: "Well Mattloch -- I am now waiting for your explanation of how futures market (let alone the spot market for Crude) works and why, with a tangible solid plan for further exploitation of our own resources set in stone, the price of oil futures (and thus anticipatory pricing at the pump) won't fall?"

The futures market is based on the anticipated price of oil at a set date in the future, with the spot market being the price of oil at that moment. The futures market looks at both the supply (and any anticipated problems- hurricane season, political unrest, etc.) and demand (hotter or colder weather, national and global economics, CAFE standards, etc.) and tries to predice what the price will be down the road (at the time of delivery). Sellers anticipate the prices will be lower at the time of delivery (therefore they will sell it higher than the spot market will be at that time) and buyers anticipate the price will be higher at the time of delivery (and they'll make a nice profit selling it on the spot market).

Increasing supply (by "setting in stone" the opening on new fields) will have an effect on the futures market when those fields are finally open. Why would an "open" but unproductive field decrease spot prices? And why would futures prices drop without an anticipated drop in spot prices?

Of course, none of this answers my questions to you (which you still haven't answered): how much supply (daily) can be provided by ANWR, or any other field (CA or FL offshore drilling, CO oil shale, or any other field)? And how long will it take for those fields to start producing? (Don't give me the bs song-and-dance about "recoverable" oil, just how much can hit the spot market per day, and at what price. "Technically" recoverable just means if you are willing to pay $500+/bl.)

Oh, and your Cuba/China story doesn't hold water. Just because they have the contracts to drill doesn't mean they will. They just prevent anyone else from doing so. Just like what the Administration is trying to do in Iraq.....