Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oil Expert: Dem House Leader Steny Hoyer Misleads CNBC on Oil Lease Drilling
businessandmedia.org ^ | June 13, 2008 | Jeff Poor

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Maryland
KEYWORDS: 68millionacres; anwr; api; congress; democratparty; democrats; drilling; energy; energyprices; environment; gasprices; ocs; oil; oilleases; oilprices
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: Ben Ficklin

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...


21 posted on 06/13/2008 10:56:31 AM PDT by El Laton Caliente (NRA Member & www.Gunsnet.net Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: El Laton Caliente
I'm not trying to overlook the obvious, but all that is just "part of it". Also obvious it the fact that it is better to expand drilling adjacent to existing production/infrastructure because it is cheaper and can get the new production to market quicker.

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.

22 posted on 06/14/2008 5:43:21 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

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.


23 posted on 06/14/2008 8:28:36 AM PDT by El Laton Caliente (NRA Member & www.Gunsnet.net Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Rufus2007; Abundy; Albion Wilde; AlwaysFree; AnnaSASsyFR; bayliving; BFM; cindy-true-supporter; ...

Maryland “Freak State” PING!


24 posted on 06/14/2008 3:04:19 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less! Sign the petition at http://www.americansolutions.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

Are the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil oil companies simply refusing to drill there, or are they currently mapping the place out before they determine whether to drill?


25 posted on 06/14/2008 3:06:16 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less! Sign the petition at http://www.americansolutions.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
They spudded the first well a few weeks ago.

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.

26 posted on 06/14/2008 3:26:36 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: squarebarb
I know oil companies take out leases on everything in sight ‘just in case’. Are they not drilling on them because environmentalists have stopped them or because the leases are unproductive or what?

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?

27 posted on 06/14/2008 3:33:33 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rufus2007

The other night someone on Hannity and Colmes said we had more oil in the Rockies than all of Saudi Arabia. Is this so?


28 posted on 06/14/2008 3:45:29 PM PDT by JZelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rufus2007
...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.

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...

29 posted on 06/19/2008 5:47:25 PM PDT by Who is John Galt? ("Sometimes I have to break the law in order to meet my management objectives." - Bill Calkins, BLM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rufus2007

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!


30 posted on 06/23/2008 1:20:34 PM PDT by alwaysontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
That is unfair.
The Dems who voted for it thought they meant "Area 51!"
31 posted on 06/26/2008 12:05:40 PM PDT by Publius6961 (You're Government, it's not your money, and you never have to show a profit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: squarebarb
I know oil companies take out leases on everything in sight ‘just in case’. Are they not drilling on them because environmentalists have stopped them or because the leases are unproductive or what?

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.

32 posted on 06/26/2008 12:15:42 PM PDT by Publius6961 (You're Government, it's not your money, and you never have to show a profit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rufus2007

Latest RAT talking point. Look for Olbermann and Colmes to repeat it like parrots with a new word.


33 posted on 06/26/2008 12:22:25 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson