A blog about Politics.
Real Name: Chico Esquela Address: 23543 Avenue 56, Ducor, CA Biggest Butler Bldg=>TeePee Ducor, CA 93218 Cell: (esc)uch-enes Date of Birth: December 14, 1945 Member Since: July 31, 2007 Last Signed In: October 09, 2008 Profile Views: 2476 Blog Views: 20872 Are you Eloi or Morlock? 65 MPG Ford -- We Won't See It Here? Know Why? Gustavo -- Is God telling us to ignore the Republican Convention? Could it be a woman will show us the way? Vets for Freedom Ad -- One of the best I've seen....... Who will McCain choose? I just watched the Obama-McCain Saddleback Forum and......... The Obamasiuhhhh........... 10 reasons not to vote for him...... It really IS as simple as THIS............... Swimming & Drooling............ You Gotta LOVE This Dog! July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 http://www.sounddogs.com/pr... 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Obama and Dems Lying About Oil Leases.............
WSJ: Obama, Democrats Lying About "Nonproducing" Oil Leases
—Ace Caught between public anger over $4.00+ per gallon gas and their anti-oil base which cannot countenance additional drilling of any kind, Democrats have trotted out an extremely stupid talking point -- make oil companies drill where they currently hold leases before allowing any additional exploration. If they can sell this stupidity, they can claim they are in fact for additional oil production -- they're the ones trying to pressure the oil companies to stop "stockpiling" oil-rich lands -- while holding the line on additional wells, thus appeasing their base. No Republican would be permitted such a convenient absurdity; the MSM would demolish it. But the rules are always different for Democrats, and the media is determined to help sell this lie. Except for a few conservative-titling outfits, such as the WSJ. Oil companies take leases not because they know there's oil on the land (or under the sea), but because they think there might be oil and need the lease in order to explore that possibility and to secure the legal right to pump it if they do find it. It's simply ridiculous to assume, as the Democrats' talking points do, that each and every lease actually contains a huge amount of recoverable oil, and the oil companies are simply refusing to drill there. Instead, the claim goes, the oil companies are clamoring for the right to grab up additional leases... which then, of course, they will also leave untouched. Why are oil companies securing leases for oil they know is there but have no intention of drilling? If their goal is to not drill, why bother with the expense of a lease at all? They're all in on it together, in this conspiracy theory, so they can all just agree to not drill at all. They hardly need to pay the government money for the right not to drill. This is all so ridiculous that the entirety of the MSM should have called this dishonest spin for what it is. But they didn't, of course, and so the WSJ is left to explain the obvious: To deflect the GOP effort to relax the offshore-drilling ban – and thus boost supply while demand will remain strong – Democrats also say that most of the current leases are "nonproducing." The idea comes from a "special report" prepared by the Democratic staff of the House Resources Committee, chaired by Mr. Rahall. "If we extrapolate from today's production rates on federal lands and waters," the authors write, the oil companies could "nearly double total U.S. oil production" (their emphasis). In other words, these whiz kids assume that every acre of every lease holds the same amount of oil and gas.In other words, they're assuming that that the currently-nonproducing leases can produce the same amount of oil as the producing ones. And yet the productive wells were not chosen at random, were they? They were explored because they were the most likely to have oil, and then they were drilled because the exploration proved they had oil. This is like assuming that because your wife agreed to marry you when you asked her to, you can randomly walk down the street proposing to strangers and enjoy the same 100% success rate. Yet the existence of a lease does not guarantee that the geology holds recoverable resources. Brian Kennedy of the Institute for Energy Research quips that, using the same extrapolation, the 9.4 billion acres of the currently nonproducing moon should yield 654 million barrels of oil per day. Nonetheless, the House still went through with a gesture called the "use it or lose it" bill, which passed on Thursday 223-195. It would be pointless even if it had a chance of becoming law. Oil companies acquire leases in the expectation that some of them contain sufficient oil and gas to cover the total costs. Yet it takes years to move through federal permitting, exploration and development. The U.S. Minerals Management Service notes that only one of three wells results in a discovery of oil that can be recovered economically. In deeper water, it's one of five. All this involves huge risks, capital investment – and time.It also involves guessing at where one's resources are best used. If ExxonMobile has, say, thirty leases, and the money and equipment and manpower to only explore on, say, five areas at a time, they're obviously going to go after the most likely sites first, and the least likely areas will remain "nonproducing" in the interim. But even the most likely sites are in fact highly unlikely to produce recoverable oil. It's a numbers game. Oil can be found -- but they need to be able to look in a lot of places. ... Yet companies are not allowed to explore where the biggest prospects for oil and gas may exist – especially on the Outer Continental Shelf. Seven of the top 20 U.S. oil fields are now located in analogous deepwater areas (greater than 1,000 feet) in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2006, Chevron discovered what is likely to be the largest American oil find since Prudhoe, drilled in 7,000 feet of water and more than 20,000 feet under the sea floor. The Wilcox formation may have an upper end of 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil and should begin producing by 2014 – perhaps ushering in a new ultradeepwater frontier.But by all means let's try to force companies to drill where they have little hope of finding oil. Via Hot Air, which also makes this point: Demanding drilling first on all extant leases is an absurd position to take when they don’t have any indication of accessible oil from the preliminary studies. It amounts to drilling dry holes at a cost of tens of millions of dollars each just to demonstrate the futility. Who do you think will pay that cost? Hint: it won’t be Barack Obama or Congress, but the people who drive up to the pumps every day. Source: The Wall Street Journal
20 comments from 11 users
1
posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Jul 1, 2008 at 03:18 PM
Past is Prologue..................... As I said before................ posted by
robertcarter
on Jul 1, 2008 at 03:32 PM
You show a need for an independant news reporting service. It seems to me that the main stream media is not - it is an advertisement arm of the Democratic Party. Too bad someone (an entrepreneur) start a news outlet that reported facts, was not allowed to use adjetives or adverbs, and asked question when a fact or statement required. Sometimes I fear that Fox goes too far in that direction. posted by
antiextremism
on Jul 1, 2008 at 03:39 PM
We have a HUGE supply of methane available to us. Just have to pipe it straight into the halls of congress where all the stinky gas lies. posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 1, 2008 at 03:43 PM
No Republican would be permitted such a convenient absurdity; the MSM would demolish it This is silly. The "mainstream media" bend over backwards to ignore Republican absurdity. No matter how many times you repeat the lie of a "left-leaning media," there is ain't no sitch animal. . We could outperform near-offshore-oil through conservation, and start doing it today. posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Jul 1, 2008 at 04:32 PM
We can do more in conservation area, no argument there. I deplore all the waste I see. But to think we can conserve our way out of this is ludicrous. You are so biased you cannot see that the LSM is the one giving the Dems a "pass" on their foolish attitude toward resolving our energy problems. posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 1, 2008 at 04:37 PM
To think we can produce our way out of this situation is ludicrous. . We'll have to give up our dependence on fossil fuels sooner or later. Sooner is *WAY* better. There's no reason we can't drill later for lubricants and chemical feedstock--but burning oil is the worst possible way of using it. And drilling offshore is the worst way to get it--it give a false sense of "doing something" that hinders real solutions--like driving less, insulating better, and *THINKING*. . As to the "mainstream media," note how the echo chamber is repeating the moronic charge that Wesley Clark somehow denigrated McCain's service. The same echo chamber stood by as Republicans actually *DID* denigrate John Kerry's service. What Clark said is that sitting in a cockpit or a prison cell is not a qualifier for the Presidency. Quite rightly. posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Jul 1, 2008 at 04:40 PM
posted by
johnburnssucks
on Jul 1, 2008 at 04:51 PM
Most transit buses burn natural gas these days. Ah, for the good old days, when buses belched diesel smoke that made your eyes water... posted by
acedaylight337
on Jul 1, 2008 at 05:07 PM
"To think we can produce our way out of this situation is ludicrous" RF i think we could have produced our way out of this mess if we had focused more on the production of new technology 35 years ago when we should have. To deal with what we actually have to work with I say we do everything we can. Drill for more oil, conserve as much as you can, support new technology, and get over the fact that we have no right to cheap energy (Sorry folks i have trouble with the whole blame big oil again theory as well)
~Ace posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 1, 2008 at 05:24 PM
Glad you're getting such a kick out of the concept that we cannot sustain our current usage of oil much longer, Chico. You must laugh yourself silly at famines. . Ace, Carter tried to tell us...but he was succeeded by a much-inferior President... posted by
gaslight
on Jul 1, 2008 at 05:28 PM
I agree with random, but I ask something of random that no other blogger will dare ask. Ride a bicycle. I do. posted by
randomfactor
on Jul 1, 2008 at 05:29 PM
Gaslight, I'm preparing to do just that--but my situation makes it quite difficult to do so. On many of my trips I have to bring along a wheelchair. . In the meantime, I'm easing off on driving, cutting unnecessary trips, etc--even though I get around 28 city and nearly 40 highway. posted by
johnburnssucks
on Jul 1, 2008 at 05:41 PM
I ride my mountain bike to the gym (about a mile) and back. posted by
adampayne
on Jul 1, 2008 at 07:23 PM
I guess I'm just getting crotchety and dense in my doddering years. Why is this issue always framed as a one side or the other political exercise? Why can't a problem we know exists, be attacked more holistically encompassing many of the stakeholders involved, rather than be reduced to a false two dimensional cartoon battle? We as a nation, unlike many other nations in the world, didn't do one damned thing about increasing CAFE standards on our motor vehicles, after the first oil crisis 35 years ago. As a matter of fact, when oil declined steeply in the late eighties the Big Three, Larry Moe and Curly, opted to design gas hogs like SUVs and huge trucks that offered more profit to coincide with more pollution for the masses. Subsidies for wind and solar energy was also scrapped in the late 1980s, which robbed the people and forward thinking entrepreneurs of gaining an advantage on alternative energy sources. Let us just say government, as always, caved in to the biggest corporate donors to subvert competition and strangle innovation in this country. The only allowable innovation that our government authorizes with really big subsidies continues to go to the oil and coal men. This is why there is such a distrust of our oil industry and of their clones in big media and government. A really funny thing today is people on both the left and right hate the MSM (main stream media) and government equally, just with different perceptions on why things are so crappy. Maybe if we could agree that crap is happening all around us, and not much in the way of progress is also happening we could decide to listen to one another and come up with some compromises and solutions. I am sick to death of the finger pointing hysteria with misnomer labels as some sort of response. That is BS. Let's get beyond labels and talk about solutions. Many folks in the Rockies are nervous about the proposed shale exploration. Most of them remember the brief boom time that happened before big industry said it couldn't make enough money with the old technology. I have read and seen a bunch of reports that indicate a new technology is on the horizon that could make shale extrapolation do-able and with cost benefits as well as a small land imprint. This process will also capture both natural gas and oil in the process. It sounds dreamy. Maybe it will happen. I'm not sure what happens to the mountains that balance on hardened pockets of shale when it gets cooked and removed. A lot folks across the planet are working tirelessly on alternative energy production with big government backing. Why not us? Why are we always cheap sheep that allow only monopolists to to play in the development world? Time to change the game.
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Nice to see that someone feels bad for the oil companies. Got a lot of oil stocks do ya? I'm not buying that they don't have enough money or equipment to explore in the areas they already lease. That's like saying the guy that just won the lottery doesn't have enough money for a new car. It's complete nonsense.
I'd like to see actual figures on how much land is leased and how much is actually being explored. What I'm getting is that the higher the price of gas gets, the more industry officials and bought members of congress are clamoring for us to open the "forbidden" areas for exploration (off the coast of florida, CA, ANWR, etc). Why is that, I wonder? posted by
catpaw
on Jul 2, 2008 at 11:17 AM
I understand that the Alaskan oil pipeline is shipping about 1/3 of the oil now than when it first became operational. It seems that the "easy" oil has been pumped out of the ground and steam heat must be injected into the ground to get the rest of the oil. (This info from National Geographic.) Chico: Anything new about the bug-producing oil? That sounds like the most practical solution to me, for meeting the oil crisis. posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Jul 2, 2008 at 01:32 PM
Its not that they don't have enough money to drill where they already have leased. Do you not read or comprehend well Pete? (that is rhetorical question as you are a "progressive" a name 180 degrees out of phae with the reality) -- Why should they drill where the geology, siesmic, well control they already have tells them it probably will not be economic to produce. You can not buy anything you want but you are about as progressive as Moe and his close cousin Dr. Mark. Cat, check www.LS9.com for part of it (every now and again for an update)
posted by
antiextremism
on Jul 2, 2008 at 02:17 PM
I get a kick out of co-workers who do a power walk on their break, but get pissed when they can't park closer. posted by
mattloch
on Jul 3, 2008 at 07:47 AM
Chico: "Why should they drill where the geology, siesmic, well control they already have tells them it probably will not be economic to produce."
posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Jul 4, 2008 at 01:15 PM
Your post shows your abysmal lack of knowledge of the O&G industry Mattloch. When leases come up you have to take what you can get during the short "window"........ And your statement that they are uneconomic at $140 when would it be economic to drill also shows your business sense. They may NEVER be economic to drill. Ever watch the NBA or NFL draft? Many are called, few are chosen. This makes no sense to your bureaucratic mindset does it??
Didn't think so..............
1
Our readers recommend: |
