Posted on 06/13/2008 8:29:18 AM PDT by Rufus2007
As gas prices increase, Congress is feeling more and more pressures from its constituencies to explore for oil in areas that are off-limits, including the Outer Continental Shelf and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Many politicians in Washington, D.C. oppose those efforts due to environmental concerns, but House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on June 12 he’s not opposed to drilling, but said oil companies aren’t using the leases they have.
“Well, there’s nothing wrong with drilling,” Hoyer said. “But the fact of the matter is we have 80 percent of the leases that are currently authorized that are not being drilled upon - 80 percent on gas, 82 percent on natural gas. We have most of the outer continental shelf as well as the on-land, on-the-mainland leases that are not being used.”
(Excerpt) Read more at businessandmedia.org ...
Correct, except...
It takes two to six years to bring offshore leases into production depending on depth and other considerations.
Procure the lease by bid process from the Government on their schedule. At least a year...
Off shore seismograph examination to map likely areas. At least six months...
Off shore test drilling from a jack up barge (shallow) or drill ship (deep). Six months to a year plus...
Platform design and fabrication. Six months (shallow) to two years or more...
Set the platform, drill the wells (50 to 200 per platform), lay pipeline to shore, construct shore pumping & production facilities and assemble the production modules, then commission. Six months to a year...
You now have a new offshore field in production for a one to three billion cost, give or take...
Just as the Gulf moratorium contained the "except Area 181" clause, the Alaska moratorium contains the "except Bristol Bay" clause. So, instead promoting the "drill everywhere" concept, it would be far better to push on the "drill Bristol Bay" concept.
From my prospective we really need the drill everywhere approach. Nothing else is going to convince the Saudis and speculators (redundant?) that we are serious.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
Are the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil oil companies simply refusing to drill there, or are they currently mapping the place out before they determine whether to drill?
This will be the first well on the OCS where a portion of the royalties go to TX, LA, MS, and AL, as well as the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
The leases are going to be in various stages of development. Before they can be exploited, they have to be surveyed and mapped -- so as to find out whether any oil might be there or not.
Before they can be exploited, there will be all kinds of environmental hoops to jump through.
Some, no doubt, have been found to have quantities of oil that are not economically feasible to exploit with current technology.
Other leases are perhaps being held because of deposits of other minerals -- even gravel.
You might remind your liberal friend that a business makes no money off its product unless it has some to sell. Accordingly, oil companies remain in the business of finding, drilling and producing oil -- wherever and whenever they're allowed to do so.
If the enviro-weenies and the government don't get out of the way, we're going to see $5, $6, $7 and up gasoline for the foreseeable future.
Is that what she wants?
The other night someone on Hannity and Colmes said we had more oil in the Rockies than all of Saudi Arabia. Is this so?
If true, it would provide an even better argument in favor of leasing: take the oil companies' money for as many leases as possible, because (according to the D@mocrats) they won't bother to drill them anyway - and there would therefore be absolutely zero risk of any oil spills. Free money to the taxpayer, with zero risk!
What a bunch of jug heads...
I saw the interview with Steny over a CNBC feed. The second he made the comment “All they need to do is stick a straw in the ground”, I thought “LIER”.
What an idiot!
You have a lot of catching up dude! Otherwise you'll end up voting for the wrong side again
There are two issues nobody ever discusses, which clarify the problem:
Speaking of "unconscionable 'profits': the oil companies pay huge bucks on these leases for permission to gamble that there 'might' be recoverable oil at a profit. No one ever asks the politicians how much income the oil companies paid for these speculative leases.
The second is the naive question: if the leases are unprofitable, why don't the oil companies return them and get their money back on the remaining lease terms?
Ha ha?
In a perfect world, that is exactly what would happen, and Maxine Waters, the idiot (but I repeat myself) can arrange for the "gummint" to exploit them.
Or, more realistically, the companies will hold on to the leases for when government ineptitude and corruption pushes the price over $500 a barrel, when they might be economical to exploit.
Latest RAT talking point. Look for Olbermann and Colmes to repeat it like parrots with a new word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.