Can somebody tell me how this is untrue? First I have heard of this ‘oil companies aren’t using their leases’ thing. I am in an e-mail argument with a liberal friend and I know she is going to quote this.
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?
It is true. The guy yesterday referred to a second , smaller area and couldn’t say where it was.
See post 6 below and the other thread with an extensive discussion and a map.
If you read the article you will have your answer, but just to make it easy for you, yes they are dry. But take the time to read the article.
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?
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.