Posted on 06/26/2008 10:58:53 AM PDT by tobyhill
Democrat Claim:
“In an effort to compel oil and gas companies to produce on the 68 million acres of federal lands, both onshore and offshore, that are leased but sitting idle, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) today introduced legislation that gives Big Oil one option - either ‘use it or lose it.’” (Release, 6/12/08)
The Facts: “Use It or Lose It” is already the law of the land.
The Secretary of the Interior ALREADY can “cancel” a lease if the lessee “fails to comply” with the law, regulations or the terms of the lease.
(Excerpt) Read more at gop.gov ...
It would be beneficial if someone would answer them and while it probably would get 0 coverage with the MSM, it would help us who want to drill now--drill anywhere and everywhere.
You lease land for the right to survey it and drill wells if it would be economically feasible.
You don't snap your fingers and *ping* you discover all the recoverable oil.
It takes years to properly survey a large area of land or sea, and that's just collecting the data. Then it takes years to analyze it.
Just because a company is not drilling does not mean they are not actively trying to develop a field.
Pure unadulterated fascism. The National Socialists did the same thing in Germany in the ‘30s and ‘40s. The government set production quotas for every company. If a company did not meet that quota, the government took control of the company and replaced the owner with someone else who would meet that quota.
Remember Maxine Waters’ threat?
Everything the Democrats have proposed in “energy legislation” has passed in some form, from CAFE standards to the Farm Bill, and from the offset the promises were that it would lower gas prices but in reality it only increased them. There’s already laws about unwarranted speculation and there’s already a “use it or lose it law”. When the “new” use it or lose it bill gets passed and gas prices don’t lower then they’ll move to the next issue that won’t increase supplies, raising the margins for speculators.
“Is it just I, or is anyone else puzzled, nay frustrated, that we have heard nary a peep from any “Big Oil” CEO or spokesperson, answering this DemoRat.”
No point in arguing with a drunk, drunk on power in this case.
Thanks. Was not aware of this though no surprise as MSM would never report any such fiction or show the RATS talking points to be pure sophistry.
***You lease land for the right to survey it and drill wells if it would be economically feasible.***
You are so right on and the key words are “economically feasible”.
If there’s a pool of 10,000 barrels but only 20% is recoverable and it cost a half a million to sink a well then no company is that dumb to just lose money for the sake of losing money.
Next up: the "I know you are but what am I" Act of 2008 and Justice Roberts' opinion in the case of Smelt It vs. Dealt It.
I was stunned because I thought for sure the Rats could come up with 1 acre. I heard yesterday that most of that “68 million acres” have leases through small companies who are trying to extract the oil but takes much longer because of the capital expenditure and many times they amount to nothing more than modern Wildcatters that hit dry holes.
Stop asking questions!
You’re supposed to have drool running down your face and shout, “power to the people, big oil is bad.”
These are tactics one expects in some third rate South American nation. Politicians who engage in this deserve to be shunned and exposed, but the media will love them and bestow credibility on it, never asking any real questions.
1. After investigation of a leased parcel which does not prove to be viable, IT IS STILL ON THE BOOKS AS UNDER LEASE.
2. I believe that is takes 8 to 10 years to get through all the permit issues and lawsuits before any exploration can take place.
Nothing here but a smoke screen.
The Big Oil CEO's, having been dragged in front of a bunch of idiots in Congress a few too many times, know full well who is in charge of their businesses, and it's not them - it's the idiots in Congress.
Piss off the wrong Congressman by calling him or her an idiot, and they can watch their shareholders equity and dividends swirl down the tubes of taxation.
Using the keyword search function, I came up with these articles:
Red Cavaney w/American Petroleum Institute: "Idle" lease claims based on lack of understanding
CNBC's Larry Kudlow - Drill, Drill, Drill: My Interview with Anadarko Petroleum CEO James Hackett
Red Cavaney in WSJ: The 'Idle' Oil Field Fallacy
Oil Expert: Dem House Leader Steny Hoyer Misleads CNBC on Oil Lease Drilling
It is already the law of the land.
It is mind-boggling that this clown is chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, and doesn't know that.
The alternative is that the clown is a huckster, a liar, incompetent or outright dishonest. As are all dissimulators who keep screaming (assuming, correctly, that the public is totally ignorant) "Why don't the Oil Companies drill on the leases they already have??!!??"
He knows it but is too busy playing the political word game and trying to bamboozle the American citizen.
The American people are tired of the high prices and tired of the Democrat’s blame game and inaction on real solutions.
Global Warming hoopla alone ain’t going to cut it no more.
It has been answered by Red Cavaney, President and CEO of the American Petroleum Instititue. You should be frustrated with the Lame Stream Media that won’t cover the answer.
“Idle” lease claims based on lack of understanding: Cavaney
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2035201/posts
In most oil leases, a leasee can choose to not use a lease for 10 years before losing it. The Rats plan is to take away leases after 2-3 years of inactivity. That's a very bad idea.
If it makes economic sense to drill in a lease, a leasee will do it, so there's no need to compel drilling or take away an undrilled lease. On the contrary, a "use it or lose it" provision would actually be counterproductive, as it would discourage companies from bidding on leases that are likely to become economical 5-10 years in the future but aren't economical yet. That would result in less exploration, and, in turn, less drilling in the future.
The only inefficiency I see with the way current lease programs work is the fact that the Feds collect a % of the revenues from a lease that gets drilled. All that does is discourage companies from developing leases they own.
If the government were to get rid of royalties, it wouldn't lose anything, as then companies would be willing to bid higher lease bonuses.
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.