Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.myspace.com/t/4052663.aspx?fuseaction=fo...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
Big Oil Not Using 30 Million Acres of Land Leased for Drilling
As the price of a gallon of gasoline has soared to previously unimaginable heights - it’s $4.27 here - Republican politicians have been pushing the same cockamamie idea: It’s not the big oil companies’ fauly, and it’s not oil speculators, and we don’t need more efficient technology in our cars, and we don’t need to conserve.
The magic solution, according to these Republicans, is to turn federal lands into giant oil drilling operations.
The Republicans say that the reason the price of gasoline is so high is that Democrats have blocked plans to drill for oil on public lands.
If only more federal protected wilderness was opened up for oil drilling, they say, the supply of oil would go way up and the price of gasoline would go down to the low levels it was before George W.
Bush entered the White House.
This week, Oregon Congressman David Wu took to the floor of the U.S.
House of Representatives and offered a dead-on response to these Republican claims that inaccessible oil in America’s public wilderness is to blame for high gasoline prices.
Wu explained that the big oil companies already have access to huge areas of federal protected land… and they aren’t even using that access.
Representative Wu explained,
“Republicans claim that we could lower the price at the pump if we would only approve more and more drilling leases.
That is their rhetoric.
Here are the facts.
Oil companies do not need new areas to drill.
They need to focus on areas that are already opened to them.
Of the 42 million acres of Federal land currently leased by oil and gas companies, only about 12 million acres are actually being drilled to produce oil and natural gas.”
How about that: Oil companies are only drilling on 28.5 percent of the federal land already available to them.
If there is a supply problem having to do with fossil fuels on public lands, it’s a problem of the energy corporations’ own making.
The oil companies have been given huge opportunities to drill in America’s wilderness already, and they haven’t taken advantage of them.
If the oil companies are so inept that they can’t use the resources already available to them, why should the American people give big oil even more handouts?
|
|
|
They can enhance the value of the US dollar for a start.
|
|
I think I'm with Bill Richardson when he says that we should be drilling, but not everywhere.
Do we know anything about your original post's claims regarding the 30 million acres of land?
Does this land have oil to be drilled?
If it were open (which, I have no doubt that it is), available - it would be countered with what else but questions of cost and effect.
If these areas dont have any oil, why should they be drilling there?
Our country needs to catch up to the rest of the world and go green.
Until then, drilling should be an option - but we shouldn't promote drilling just for the sake of drilling.
|
|
Just like anybody else, i don't like high gas prices and can understand normal complaints.
However, many people don't think twice about walking into a convenience store and paying $2 for 1L of water.
That works out to about $8 per gallon.
Drinking water. purified.
Not drilled, not refined, barely processed, put it in a plastic bottle with a sticker on it and no problems.
so why the undercurrent about "big oil" profiteering and manipulation and all that, yet nobody raises a single stink about water.
think about it, what costs more to produce, gas for your car or a bottle of water?
So who is the true boogeyman here, huh?
sorry, only partially on topic, my rant for the day.
|
|
Luke (NLD-MN):
Do we know anything about your original post's claims regarding the 30 million acres of land?
Does this land have oil to be drilled?
These 30 million unused acres are part of the 45 million acres that the Bush Administration opened for exploration.
The industry has had more than 200 million acres opened to them since 1989 and they are asking for more, wtf for?
Why should we give them access to even more when they don't fully explore what has already been opened to them (note: that question was in my original post).
Source for some of this info (it's READILY AVAILABLE by searching Google, btw).
|
|
|
HERE IS ANOTHER SOURCE for info on the 45 million acres opened for exploration by the Bush Admin.
|
|
|
"Not Exploring" might have been more accurate in my thread title than "Not Using".
|
|
Pre$ton:
As the price of a gallon of gasoline has soared to previously unimaginable heights - it’s $4.27 here - Republican politicians have been pushing the same cockamamie idea: It’s not the big oil companies’ fauly, and it’s not oil speculators, and we don’t need more efficient technology in our cars, and we don’t need to conserve.
The magic solution, according to these Republicans, is to turn federal lands into giant oil drilling operations.
The Republicans say that the reason the price of gasoline is so high is that Democrats have blocked plans to drill for oil on public lands.
If only more federal protected wilderness was opened up for oil drilling, they say, the supply of oil would go way up and the price of gasoline would go down to the low levels it was before George W.
Bush entered the White House.
This week, Oregon Congressman David Wu took to the floor of the U.S.
House of Representatives and offered a dead-on response to these Republican claims that inaccessible oil in America’s public wilderness is to blame for high gasoline prices.
Wu explained that the big oil companies already have access to huge areas of federal protected land… and they aren’t even using that access.
Representative Wu explained,
“Republicans claim that we could lower the price at the pump if we would only approve more and more drilling leases.
That is their rhetoric.
Here are the facts.
Oil companies do not need new areas to drill.
They need to focus on areas that are already opened to them.
Of the 42 million acres of Federal land currently leased by oil and gas companies, only about 12 million acres are actually being drilled to produce oil and natural gas.”
How about that: Oil companies are only drilling on 28.5 percent of the federal land already available to them.
If there is a supply problem having to do with fossil fuels on public lands, it’s a problem of the energy corporations’ own making.
The oil companies have been given huge opportunities to drill in America’s wilderness already, and they haven’t taken advantage of them.
If the oil companies are so inept that they can’t use the resources already available to them, why should the American people give big oil even more handouts?
I realize that you are from California, probably never seen a drilling rig up close, or ever look at the economics of the oil industry.
There is numerous factual errors and incorrect assumptions in this post.
First, the vast majority of this land has no oil or gas on it.
Or at least any that is currently recoverable.
There are extremely complex fields that take millions of dollars to drill a single well.
Currently the biggest target of drilling right now is called Shale natural gas.
The largest shale field in the US is the Barnett Shale in Texas.
Geologist knew it existed, and it was of privately owned land, but we simply did not have the technology to drill it until 10 years ago.
It requires drilling horizontally and forcing water into the rock to reach small spread out pockets of gas.
Most of the millions of acres that have something have Shale Gas.
Then once you drill the gas, it has to be compressed and piped to market.
We do not use the natural gas from Alaska, because there is not a pipe to get it to the lower 48 states.
A lot of the areas where drilling is banned have never had any production on them and are close to existing infrastructure.
That means that there is simple shallow fields that can start producing oil or gas within a year or two of opening the field.
Basic vertical wells, various forms of offshore wells, and horizontal frac wells are all exclusive of each other.
ANWR is within a few miles of Prudhoe Bay and can start producing millions of barrels of oil in less than five years.
My last point is that Bush is not the only reason why oil prices have quadrupled in the last 10 years.
All those huge SUVs that everyone drives didn't helped.
The fact that since the mid 90s China has gone from a oil exporter to the second largest importer in the world was a major reason.
There was also the declining production of several of the world's largest fields.
The most important to the US has been the collapse of a 4 million barrel a day field of the coast of Mexico.
The global economic boom of the last 25 years and a lack of investment in new oil due to depressed prices of the 90s and restrictions throughout the world.
|
|
Pre$ton:
"Not Exploring" might have been more accurate in my thread title than "Not Using".
I dont get it.
The government isn't giving "Big Oil" ownership of the property;
Only the abillity to drill there if they want to.
Right?
|
|
Brian:
I realize that you are from California, probably never seen a drilling rig up close, or ever look at the economics of the oil industry.
LOL!
There are plenty of oil rigs in California, I see them up and down Interstate 5, spread out over half of Long Beach and up and down the coast on Highway 1....
Welcome to stupid you fucking dumbass!
By the way, the fact remains that Bush has opened 10s of millions of acres of land for exploration and we have no incentive to give these companies access to any more if they don't explore what we've already opened up.
C'mon, it's not that complicated to understand.
|
|
Luke (NLD-MN):
Pre$ton:
"Not Exploring" might have been more accurate in my thread title than "Not Using".
I dont get it.
The government isn't giving "Big Oil" ownership of the property;
Only the abillity to drill there if they want to.
Right?
They opened up the land for exploration.
That's what they asked for and got, and yet they don't take advantage...
Hmmmm... what's wrong with this picture?
|
|
Brian:
First, the vast majority of this land has no oil or gas on it.
Can you provide any evidence of this and provide us with a source?
Also, please tell us how you know where these 30 million acres are located and what is and what is not to be found there.
LOL
|
|
Pre$ton:
Luke (NLD-MN):
Do we know anything about your original post's claims regarding the 30 million acres of land?
Does this land have oil to be drilled?
These 30 million unused acres are part of the 45 million acres that the Bush Administration opened for exploration.
The industry has had more than 200 million acres opened to them since 1989 and they are asking for more, wtf for?
Why should we give them access to even more when they don't fully explore what has already been opened to them (note: that question was in my original post).
Source for some of this info (it's READILY AVAILABLE by searching Google, btw).
Preston is reading impaired.
You must excuse him.
The meaning of "exploration" completely eludes him.
Apparently it means "there is oil there to be drilled" to him.
|
|
Pre$ton:
By the way, the fact remains that Bush has opened 10s of millions of acres of land for exploration and we have no incentive to give these companies access to any more if they don't explore what we've already opened up.
C'mon, it's not that complicated to understand.
Hey child.
Lets apply the same rules you want to work by.
Can you provide evidence they HAVENT exlpored said area with sources?
Opps forgot you are required to provide proof.
It only has to be supplied IF someone disagrees with your dumb ass.
|
|
Freedom:
Pre$ton:
Luke (NLD-MN):
Do we know anything about your original post's claims regarding the 30 million acres of land?
Does this land have oil to be drilled?
These 30 million unused acres are part of the 45 million acres that the Bush Administration opened for exploration.
The industry has had more than 200 million acres opened to them since 1989 and they are asking for more, wtf for?
Why should we give them access to even more when they don't fully explore what has already been opened to them (note: that question was in my original post).
Source for some of this info (it's READILY AVAILABLE by searching Google, btw).
Preston is reading impaired.
You must excuse him.
The meaning of "exploration" completely eludes him.
Apparently it means "there is oil there to be drilled" to him.
Way to go dumbass, putting words in people's mouths again.
WEAK!
|
|
|
|