View Full Version : oil is flying
lamboguy
05-21-2008, 03:01 PM
wow we are over $130 per barrel, gasoline at the pumps now over $4.00 per gallon. when the republican congress voted for the war in Iraq to protect our interests against terrorism, and the smooth flows of oil, we were at $24 per barrel. of course you must blame the democrat's for that one, its always their faults!
Lamboguy,
Please stop posting negative stuff about the Democrats. ;) Put a positive spin on things. Corporate profits soar ! Board of Directors get bigger bonuses. You know that kind of stuff. :rolleyes:
actually if as I have suspected for some time and posted or tried to on this board about 4-5 months ago, there are speculations taking place that are out of this world since the first of this year or so.
kind of a rolling bubble building in some of these commodity markets and Congress at this point Dim, has a roll to play in stopping this.
I linked to a pdf in one of the other goon threads which i think makes almost airtight arguments for some regulation in these areas.
So, yes , by default, it is the Dims fault , although I doubt they could get the regs passed and then enforced(which is the Repug problem).
Plenty of regs to do the job with already , but not enforced.
Just one of many times that "the market" doesn't behave along the "normally thought price/demand" curve.
Hard to believe for some , but it has always been there at various times.
russowen77
05-21-2008, 05:52 PM
Thank goodness. If it keeps going up I will be able to take one hell of a vacation this fall. We started pumping again at $70. I might finally get to go to Saratoga for a meet this year. :jump:
bigmack
05-21-2008, 07:09 PM
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/5_1_08_17_52_45.png
Lambo, it is the world-wide oil market.....plain and simple. OPEC is chrging what they can get for it. So far, NO ONE IS NOT BUYING. Why should they lower it? Not one good reason.
Now, if you listened to some of the congressional hearing today, you would have heard a very good reply by the CEO of Shell - we have serious drilling, exploration, and refining problems in this country thanks to congress's stupid restrictions placed there to prevent us ever becoming independant of OPEC.
The price of oil has zero to do with politics in this country - but our inability to counter it is solely of our own doing. Your government at work.
chickenhead
05-21-2008, 08:34 PM
hep me hep me
i cant afford to drive home
stuck at work
hep me hep me
lamboguy
05-21-2008, 08:45 PM
the president gonna help you, he gonna send you some more rebate checks off your taxes, that will solve all your troubles
Marshall Bennett
05-21-2008, 09:16 PM
The bottom line is OPEC really doesn't care . They're paying an average of 35 cents for a gallon of gas and we're approaching 4 dollars . Our technology put them in the drivers seat and now they're pinching our balls . If you ask me , they need to be given some serious incentive . Maybe we need to play hardball for a change , the balls always in their court .
JustRalph
05-21-2008, 09:43 PM
getting close to 4 bucks in the Charlotte area. I am down south this week and I might stay for a while. At these prices............... :lol:
chickenhead
05-21-2008, 09:52 PM
just filled up, $53 buckaroos.
I take it as a challenge. my truck is 19/25mpg, I just got a shade over 28 for a full tank...30 is my target.
I just figured it out...my first 4.8 minutes at work pay for me to get there, my last 4.8 minutes pay for me to get home.
The rest of the time...I'm just dicking around.
ezrabrooks
05-21-2008, 10:05 PM
Never fear...we are getting ready to sue OPEC.. Is that what I heard today?
Ez
You heared correct. Over 300 voted to sue OPEC.
What a bunch of flamming idiots!
The libs were worried about our image overseas, now they will think we are the world's dumbest nation.
Sue OPEC for prices....this is grounds to throw every dip stick out of office.
I have never heard of anything so ridiculous in my life!
At the World Court ( or would this go to Judge Judy?)
"Your honor, OPEC is not pumping enough oil."
"Is that right, Mz Pelosi? How much has the USA increased it's oil production?"
"Uh, we prohibit drilling for oil, your honor,"
How the hell low can this worthless congress get? They are a world-wide embarrassment.
"......uh......mmm......Say WHAT BITCH?? Get your arse outta here."
See, this is liberish dem -speak. It is ok to drill for oil just not here. This is your environmental wacko mentality at work.
jballscalls
05-21-2008, 10:27 PM
If we complain about the gas prices, does that make us Gas Goons???
tom and all others
not to fight just making a statement
some people didnt read or understand what they read a certain post i believe was by ddog(had a link to an article)
it was about western movement of oil
in the article it stated that opec sold (or put on the mkt ) oil at 7.50 / bbl
im not good at searching and eyes to weak to reread all of the posts
if anyone knows what i m talking about please post a link
lamboguy
05-21-2008, 10:59 PM
for once tom you make some sense. i just wounder how these guys in congress can vote themselves pay increase when all of them deserve a boot in the rear end! we are the suckers for allowing these guys to "govern us".
basically the reason why the oil prices are so high is because we sold our soles to the large corporations, allowing the weak dollar, and giving these guys all the edges. if the mafia had any brains at all they would have become "legitamate bankers". they extort more money from people legally than the wiseguys could ever dream of grabbing, and they got the laws all in their favor, while the wiseguys are all doing time-----
and if the bankers go bad, nice guys like george bush and his friends in congress bail them out
PaceAdvantage
05-22-2008, 02:56 AM
Don't worry....as with all great bubbles, this too shall pop. Or maybe, it's "different this time." Gee, where have I heard that one before?
lamboguy
05-22-2008, 03:53 AM
we both know that when every living human is investing in any particular thing or equity the market will eventually take their money away from them, it always happens. in fibonacci terms oil has done alot more than a 1-1.618 expansion, and that always calls for an immediate trend reversal. when it comes to oil we have been there for over a year now. the way this one plays out has many options to it. it could be that strategic resereves gets sold, the finding of a brand new and efficient energy solution, or just plain drastic decrease in consumption thruour the world.
it took the real estate bubble 5 years to pop, how long here, i can't tell you!
ezrabrooks
05-22-2008, 07:10 AM
Prices are up due to the fact that World Demand is around 85 MBOPD and World Production is estimated at 87 MBOPD.. With edges that thin, it doesn't take much to upset a Market. Doesn't look like a bubble to me, but I didn't see the bust coming in the mid 80's either...and this run is similar.
lamboguy
05-22-2008, 08:51 AM
there are hedgefunds and individuals that are on the wrong side of the trade with oil right now. the market is not that hard to manipulate, the guy from IRAN is stockpileing his oil on ships right now, he probably is long in a big way, eventually he won't have the capacity to hold back anymore oil, and they will have to put it on the open market. oil wells flow 24 hours a day, when they gush they gush, they don't take no breaks! the oil has to go somewhere
lsbets
05-22-2008, 10:20 AM
Earlier this year the speculators were all in the C market for coffee. It had a similar run up to all time highs and the reversed to a more reasonable level very quickly after peaking. It'd be nice if the same thing happens with oil.
Don't worry....as with all great bubbles, this too shall pop. Or maybe, it's "different this time." Gee, where have I heard that one before?
it may or may not be different this time, but unlike coffee,wheat,rice,GOLD,soybeans we just can't say No , from now on we will not drive to work,we wll stop shipping goods by 30-40 percent, we will just not support our military needs around the world.
other than air and water all those other commodities on my list don't "happen" to get to market these days without OIL.
this market is unique as far as i am concerned on the demand side.
it goes way beyond demand into need,addiction, any price will be paid to get it.
would you STOP driving at 10.00 a gallon?
oh, according to some research I saw Bud is running around 11.00 a gallon, so I would say oil is no less valuable.
i think the bad news to this is that the bubble may have been to the downside for may years.
we have been paying less based on pipe dreams and fluff info.
Marshall Bennett
05-22-2008, 12:34 PM
Wondering if bicycle makers are seeing a profit lately ? :p
jcrabboy
05-22-2008, 12:44 PM
Lambo, it is the world-wide oil market.....plain and simple. OPEC is chrging what they can get for it. So far, NO ONE IS NOT BUYING. Why should they lower it? Not one good reason.
Now, if you listened to some of the congressional hearing today, you would have heard a very good reply by the CEO of Shell - we have serious drilling, exploration, and refining problems in this country thanks to congress's stupid restrictions placed there to prevent us ever becoming independant of OPEC.
The price of oil has zero to do with politics in this country - but our inability to counter it is solely of our own doing. Your government at work.
Tom:
You might want to consider a source other than one of the guys who has a very real interest in screwing us.
His 2007 salary + bonuses was 10.2 million dollars. Thats a lot of scratch for a European Ceo.
Believe me if they really wanted to increase production, drilling etc., they could do it despite the hurdles (if there really are significant hurdles at this point).
It's far easier to raise a stink about problems (overcomable problems), while raking in obscene profits, than actually channeling some of those profits into solutions.
Never trust someone who has a dog in the hunt.
A year or so from now, just like last time, we'll see articles buried in the newspaper about oil companies receiving miniscule fines in relation to the huge profits they made during a frenzy of price fixing and manipulation.
We need to regulate these guys before they sink the economy, not after the fact.
And yes, a do-nothing congress is a large part of the problem.
Jimmie
Wondering if bicycle makers are seeing a profit lately ? :p
Heh, I know for a fact that is a YES!
I know a guy that owns a couple of bike shops and he is selling them bigtime.
Also, the motorcycle/scooters are going well.
Talked to one of my buddies last week , one of the bigger car dealers around these parts, they can't trade people out of the SUV, etc. fast enough.
People that don't have to drive the big ones are changing and fast.
Now the poor guys that must use trucks, heavy duty type for work, they are getting killed on fuel costs.
On a related point, I was out at the lake over the weekend and I have NEVER seen so many home for sale signs up , seems like 40 percent.
Also, so few boats on the lake, the weather was perfect mid 80s slight breeze all weekend no clouds.
Talking to a real estate lady there that handles most of the properties there, she is down right scared.
Nothing moves at all. people can't come off the price they need and nobody will offer it.
median price there is around 475,000 or so.
Tom:
You might want to consider a source other than one of the guys who has a very real interest in screwing us. You have evidence of this, or is this just suppostion/slander?
His 2007 salary + bonuses was 10.2 million dollars. Thats a lot of scratch for a European Ceo. So Tiger Woods must really be out ot get us!
Believe me if they really wanted to increase production, drilling etc., they could do it despite the hurdles (if there really are significant hurdles at this point). Hurdles? Drilling is banned by the government. Refineries are not built due to the government. If you say no one wants to build a refinery, the allow it and call their bluff. Rght now, Congress is the hurdle.
It's far easier to raise a stink about problems (overcomable problems), while raking in obscene profits, than actually channeling some of those profits into solutions. 8% is obscene for a profit margin?
Never trust someone who has a dog in the hunt. Like Congress?
A year or so from now, just like last time, we'll see articles buried in the newspaper about oil companies receiving miniscule fines in relation to the huge profits they made during a frenzy of price fixing and manipulation.
We need to regulate these guys before they sink the economy, not after the fact. And whne they start selling it overseas and not here, what you do, piss your tank?
And yes, a do-nothing congress is a large part of the problem.
Jimmie
So why is oil expensive all over the world? $4 a gallon is not new to many. Perhpas is the sneators ahd asked real qustions yesterday. like when Shell said they re-invested thier profits, asking for an accountig of it instead of acting like a real Ahole, (Leaky Leahy) we might have actually accomplished something. Congress is not the least bit interested in solving anyting - they need this crap to justify thier constant intrusions into our freedom.
But that's just me.:rolleyes:
jballscalls
05-22-2008, 01:33 PM
4.13 for the cheap stuff here in Renton, Washington today, up 14 cents from yesterday. These Oil Goons are out of control!!
I gotta kinda agree with Tom on this one.
Yes, the oil boys could be investing more and thus showing less profits for everyone to scream about.
the problem is invest in what exactly.
I am telling you it aint as easy as toss a few billion in a hole and out comes texas tea.
I am reading some stuff about 20Trillion of investements just to have a chance, no gurantees to stay even with oil usage overall and 5Trillion of that just for gasoline needs in the next 15 years.
I have this sneaky feeling that there is more there in these "fields?" than we will ever be able to use, we will need to use it , but the extracting will lag far behind the need.
Some of it is going to be on a par with trips to Saturn as to the tech breakthroughs needed.
What says you oilmen??
Right on ddog. If congress were serious ( they are not) they could prove rather eaisily if oil companies were gouging us. They have subpoena power and could ask for the records to prove profits were being re-invested, but Leaky Leahy was more concered with cheap shots and CNN sound bytes than doing his job. All of them were very disappointing yesterday.
Here is the bottom line - congress needs high gas prices, the higher the
better. They need the demon to pretend to fight for us.
Why not call Bush up there and ask him where the cheap gas prices he promised us before going into Iraq. They could do something about us sending in 12 billion a month to rebuild Iraq while they are pocketing record oil profits over there, when the understanding was that they could afford to pay for it themselves, again, BEFORE we went in.
They could demand proof that the tax breaks we give big oil are being used wisely and that we are seeing some definable return on our investment.
There are no good guys in any of this.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article3980797.ece
Even Soros, the devil! ,to the "lunatic fringe" here it seems , has this one correct.
I heard he was going to buyoff all the superdelegates and then several swing states full of little peeps in order to get BHO elected!
the horror, the horror.....
wonatthewire1
05-22-2008, 07:13 PM
Talked to one of my buddies last week , one of the bigger car dealers around these parts, they can't trade people out of the SUV, etc. fast enough.
People that don't have to drive the big ones are changing and fast.
Mentioned this about the neighborhood Chrysler auto dealer here - in NJ - the whole lot is full of all different brands of SUVs traded in. They have a couple of cars, mainly VW's from one of their other dealerships, but no other cars.
A neighbor bought a Yukon a few years ago - I would bet that there is no more than 10,000 miles on the thing in 4 years - they really didn't "need" it. Now they don't want to drive it because of the cost.
We were at a Toyota dealership buying a Scion back in November - lot was full of the big SUVs but not too many Corollas...
juanepstein
05-22-2008, 07:25 PM
you folks need to check this out.
we are getting bent over by our government, big oil and the auto industry.
gee bush gives out big tax refunds almost at the same time oil goes through the fkn roof. hmmmmm!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vD33UMAtBY
1st part of 11
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
lamboguy
05-22-2008, 07:40 PM
the congress decided that the best way to fight the high price of oil is to sue the saudi's and Opec, also if they don't wan to start producing more oil, they are threatened we will not sell them no more guns to blow each other up. i don't knwo if this president signed or will sign this thing. i just wounder how can we pay these guys to represent up when this is the type of solutions they come up with.
another big problem we have is health care, democrat's want to give us health issurance for free, and the repblicans want you to pay for it. neither one wants to adress the real reason we have a health care epidemic, we eat poorly, and gobble down bad drugs that teh corporate drug pushers cram down our throats!
we are all horseplayers here, by nature we are realist's. we should not fall in love with democrats our republicans. they both have their very own agenda's, not representing the needs of their constituents.
juanepstein
05-22-2008, 07:50 PM
i rather pay for my own health care then have the government force me to pay for everyone.
canada has had universal healthcare and now people are pissed and sueing the government because they want to purchase their own privately.
them sueing opec is hilarious. its not even opec its our own people speculating the futures and making prices go through the roof.
lamboguy
05-22-2008, 08:06 PM
you are right, they are all in cohuits to screw us out of our money.
juanepstein
05-22-2008, 08:09 PM
you are right, they are all in cohuits to screw us out of our money.
i would love to see how much money bush made as president.
i bet its absolutley staggering.
Marshall Bennett
05-22-2008, 09:02 PM
Taking legal action against any foreign government would be so time consuming that we'd all be walking by the time anything came of it . Action against corporations here at home might bring temporary relief , but in the long run pissing off the food source would only make matters worse down the road .
I beleive the government should work with the oil companys and settle on some immediate action , buy us some time to work on a long term solution . Free up a tiny portion of the billions in profits they've raked in , freeze the price at the pumps for the summer months , and at least allow for public moral to return to some sort of normality .
Eventually we'll have to deal with OPEC . How messy the situation gets depends on how willing they are to compromise . Whats certain is that our dependence on oil won't be going away any time in the near future , and the answer isn't letting them call the shots .
juanepstein
05-22-2008, 09:18 PM
Taking legal action against any foreign government would be so time consuming that we'd all be walking by the time anything came of it . Action against corporations here at home might bring temporary relief , but in the long run pissing off the food source would only make matters worse down the road .
I beleive the government should work with the oil companys and settle on some immediate action , buy us some time to work on a long term solution . Free up a tiny portion of the billions in profits they've raked in , freeze the price at the pumps for the summer months , and at least allow for public moral to return to some sort of normality .
Eventually we'll have to deal with OPEC . How messy the situation gets depends on how willing they are to compromise . Whats certain is that our dependence on oil won't be going away any time in the near future , and the answer isn't letting them call the shots .
the future came in the early 90's with the EV1. gm let people lease them and they went over 100 miles on a single charge.
gm figured out they couldnt make money on the EV with servicing so they cut off the leases took back the all the cars and brought them out to the desert and smashed them.
they fired everyone at the EV1plant and turned it into a plant to make HUMVEES. that was their answer to alternative fuel progress. THE HUMVEE!
http://ev1-club.power.net/
JustRalph
05-22-2008, 09:27 PM
i would love to see how much money bush made as president.
i bet its absolutley staggering.
are you nuts? He lost money..............
are you nuts? He lost money..............
Another failure by this dude, will it ever end.
Boris
05-22-2008, 10:51 PM
Domestic production in Feb 1988 = 8,374 million barrels a day. In Feb 2008, domestic production was 5,113 million barrels a day.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus2M.htm
Why? I'm guessing our demand for oil today is greater than it was 20 years ago. Are we unable to produce at the same rate, or are we choosing to produce less? I don't know, but it does not make sense to me.
The government has resrticted oil production severely. My big question is why is the vast unpopulated and barren Anwar off limits due to the tree hugging wackos but the entire middle east, populated by PEOPLE is just fine, in fact, they are going to sue them make them drill more ( dems just want to control everyone's lives).
Now, UpChuck Schummer - a trulyre,akable specimen, has stated just this week:
1. Anwar is a wate of time becasue we could only get a million barrels a day, and that would lower gas prices by only a penny.
2. If OPEC increased production by a million barrels a day, it would lower gas prices by 62 cents.
:confused:
Is this the dem math that keeps Hillary in the race?
juanepstein
05-22-2008, 11:17 PM
are you nuts? He lost money..............
good answer:bang:
Boris
05-22-2008, 11:36 PM
Now, UpChuck Schummer - a trulyre,akable specimen, has stated just this week:
1. Anwar is a wate of time becasue we could only get a million barrels a day, and that would lower gas prices by only a penny.
2. If OPEC increased production by a million barrels a day, it would lower gas prices by 62 cents.
Chuck has a bit of trouble remembering all the crap that falls out of his face. A couple weeks ago he valued an increase of a million barrels a day would only drop the price of gas a penny. He's a big giant turd.
http://www.kcrg.com/explorepolitics/?feed=bim&id=18745804
From the link:
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said the Administration was “strangling” any attempts to make serious investments at alternative energy over the last seven years and that drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge would “take ten years and reduce the price of oil by a penny.”
riskman
05-23-2008, 01:00 AM
Posted by Lamboguy:
we are all horseplayers here, by nature we are realist's. we should not fall in love with democrats our republicans. they both have their very own agenda's, not representing the needs of their constituents.
All politicians create a strategy and set of positions to please their constituents or voters in the run up to elections. Past experience proves that you can believe very little of what candidates say in an election. Once they are elected you have little assurance of how they are going to govern or handle changing circumstances. Voters get caught up in the rhetoric according to their preferences and screech things like "McCain will stay in Irag 100 years" or "vote for Obama because he will bring home the troops". The reality is that the next president will evaluate the situation at the time of his election and make his decision based upon some very complex calculations. Anyone who thinks that if Obama is elected that the Iraq war will suddenly end and all the troops will be coming home in 2009 is probably in for a rude awakening since turning around this debacle just isn't that simple. Don't believe either Obama or McCain on what they say about Iraq during the campaign.
ceejay
05-23-2008, 09:06 AM
Don't worry....as with all great bubbles, this too shall pop. Or maybe, it's "different this time." Gee, where have I heard that one before?
http://www.chartoftheday.com/20080523.htm?T
It's not different this time. But this chart seems pretty orderly, for now at least.....
Quote of the Day
"The Stone Age didn't end because they ran out of stones; the Oil Age won't end because we run out of oil." - Don Huberts
russowen77
05-23-2008, 09:49 AM
The government has resrticted oil production severely. My big question is why is the vast unpopulated and barren Anwar off limits due to the tree hugging wackos but the entire middle east, populated by PEOPLE is just fine, in fact, they are going to sue them make them drill more ( dems just want to control everyone's lives).
Now, UpChuck Schummer - a trulyre,akable specimen, has stated just this week:
1. Anwar is a wate of time becasue we could only get a million barrels a day, and that would lower gas prices by only a penny.
2. If OPEC increased production by a million barrels a day, it would lower gas prices by 62 cents.
:confused:
Is this the dem math that keeps Hillary in the race?
What is so confusing. Y'all act like a barrel of oil is a barrel of oil as far as cost is concerned. Anwar is going to be some expensive oil.
JustRalph
05-23-2008, 10:21 AM
good answer:bang:
Read about it.................. before you start popping your mouth off at somebody.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503534_pf.html
What is so confusing. Y'all act like a barrel of oil is a barrel of oil as far as cost is concerned. Anwar is going to be some expensive oil. 63 cents a gallon more expensive? I doubt it. And it will be our oil, not middle east oil. There is no good reason not to drill there. Not one.
russowen77
05-23-2008, 11:22 AM
63 cents a gallon more expensive? I doubt it. And it will be our oil, not middle east oil. There is no good reason not to drill there. Not one.
That seems about right to me. The 63 cents a gallon more.
It will be our oil if we keep it. Most of the Alaskan oil has been sold to Japan.
Take the field found off Brazil. It is so deep that regular drilling heads melt before the oil can be extracted.
There is huge differences in cost to drill and ship depending on the area and depth of the oil.
That is not what the people who will drill it are saying.
They say it will help lower costs of gas.
A million more barrels a day will help. If Shell drills it, they are not buying
on the open market - they own it as it is drilled. So we make it part of the agreement to allow them to drill that it be sold/used only in the USA.
Not adding that million barrels a day certainly helps no one.
You have any math to share?
And that is only part of it - we need to be drilling off shore, everywhere. We need oil now - there is no ready substitute. Anwar is just a part of the solution that include nuclear power, windpower, etc.
russowen77
05-23-2008, 12:15 PM
I can't give you exact figures as far as drilling costs go as every field is unique. However, the difference in cost per barrel can be extreme. I have been told that the deep fields cost $200 a barrel just to extact. That does not include refining cost.
You hit on a problem though. If Shell drills it then it is theirs and they can sell it to whomever they want. Just like the oil in the earlier Alaskan fields. It doesn't mean that we will get any more of it. The shareholders from Shell or whomever will be helped but I doubt the average American would see the difference much. It is not like the oil will be owned by America or anything.
I am a capatilist. I guess we could do the socialist thing with oil and put it under state control but I sure don't see that as any type of long term solution.
It will help me out if we start drilling the high cost sites as it will drive the prices up even higher and my little bit will be worth even more. It will help me and others, some substantially, but I doubt it will do anything much for the country as a whole. It will sure help countries like Saudi as that will drive up the cost per barrel as a whole and those lucky enough to have shallow oil will see even greater profits.
to drill not to drill,
it makes sense to me that for the"market" to take care of our oil problems one thing has to be worked out...
that is the risk/reward of sinking(?) gobs of money on investment in either going after oil or alternatives no matter the current price?
How do you get public companies to invest in very risky ventures when they have no way to really know that the prices now will not return to say $70bl?
If they have spent many years/decades worth of profits only to end up with a product that would need a price of $240bl to be viable, would not the executives that brought about that mess be tar and feathered?
So, don't we have to create a price floor somewhere going forward?
Does anyone know of figures from studies of where the pricepoints in theory would need to be to force market shift?
On drilling domestic, maybe we should think of our own as part of the strategic reserves?
Use up all the other first?
63 cents a gallon more expensive? I doubt it. And it will be our oil, not middle east oil. There is no good reason not to drill there. Not one.
Tom,
One point needs clarification here. It will not be OUR oil it will be Exxon/Mobile's oil. And they will of course sell it to the highest bidder on the world market.
As a conservative, a righty, and an American, I have no qualms whetever of recognizing that all natural resources within our boundries and not on private property belong to the people. Shell, Exxon, Acme Silver Mines, whoever, should only be allowed to act as an agent for the people in providing time and place utility of the resources. So, yes, anyone who wants to drill in Alaska, all of it goes to this country, and some kind of price regulations are perfectly ok. Nothing here violates free enterprise, fair trade, of the right of business to make a profit.
The corporate agents will provide a service and make a profit from doing so. But they do not own the oil and have no right to.
russowen77
05-23-2008, 01:45 PM
As a conservative, a righty, and an American, I have no qualms whetever of recognizing that all natural resources within our boundries and not on private property belong to the people. Shell, Exxon, Acme Silver Mines, whoever, should only be allowed to act as an agent for the people in providing time and place utility of the resources. So, yes, anyone who wants to drill in Alaska, all of it goes to this country, and some kind of price regulations are perfectly ok. Nothing here violates free enterprise, fair trade, of the right of business to make a profit.
The corporate agents will provide a service and make a profit from doing so. But they do not own the oil and have no right to.
If you believe that you need to drop the this "As a conservative, a righty,"
Your way of thinking would have us all have an equal share. Where have I heard that before.
If it is on public grounds, then shouldn't we all have an equal share?
WE are the public.
Or do you want to give a bigger share to the poor? :rolleyes:;)
chickenhead
05-23-2008, 02:41 PM
On drilling domestic, maybe we should think of our own as part of the strategic reserves?
Use up all the other first?
hey hey, that's what I've been saying.
lsbets
05-23-2008, 02:52 PM
hey hey, that's what I've been saying.
Wasn't that Malcomb Forbes' theory? Use everyone else's first and save our until its all that's left?
chickenhead
05-23-2008, 03:28 PM
Wasn't that Malcomb Forbes' theory? Use everyone else's first and save our until its all that's left?
Looks like, tho I didn't know that. Seems like a reasonable thought to me, it's not going anywhere.
If you believe that you need to drop the this "As a conservative, a righty,"
Your way of thinking would have us all have an equal share. Where have I heard that before.
Tom is a closet pinko-commie. :lol: :lol: :lol:
russowen77
05-23-2008, 04:48 PM
Tom is a closet pinko-commie. :lol: :lol: :lol:
He even defended his pinko-commie position. :)
wonatthewire1
05-23-2008, 06:45 PM
As a conservative, a righty, and an American, I have no qualms whetever of recognizing that all natural resources within our boundries and not on private property belong to the people. The corporate agents will provide a service and make a profit from doing so. But they do not own the oil and have no right to.
Native American's thought that way too - look where it got them - freaking Oklahoma and the deserts of Arizona
:jump:
Valuist
05-23-2008, 09:14 PM
I haven't had a chance to read all the posts in this thread, but I did catch the Boone Pickens interview on CNBC earlier in the week. And while Pickens may be as knowledgable an authority as anyone on oil, for him to give out a prediction of $150/barrel was very irresponsible, IMO. While the Goldman analyst had already given a prediction of $200, he is considered to have no credibility because he predicted $100 oil for 2005 (it didn't get over $60). But Pickens' word does carry a lot of weight and I would bet that had there been no comments from Pickens, we wouldn't have had the 5% spike this week. Seems a bit too self serving for these "gurus" to be throwing out specific numbers.
ceejay
05-23-2008, 09:16 PM
As a conservative, a righty, and an American, I have no qualms whetever of recognizing that all natural resources within our boundries and not on private property belong to the people. Shell, Exxon, Acme Silver Mines, whoever, should only be allowed to act as an agent for the people in providing time and place utility of the resources. So, yes, anyone who wants to drill in Alaska, all of it goes to this country, and some kind of price regulations are perfectly ok. Nothing here violates free enterprise, fair trade, of the right of business to make a profit.
The corporate agents will provide a service and make a profit from doing so. But they do not own the oil and have no right to.
MMS reported http://www.mrm.mms.gov/MRMWebStats/D...07&datetype=AY ~$9.4 Billion in oil gas, ngl royalties plus $1.2 billion in bonuses last year for FEDERAL land. These were public lands now leased to E/P companies. I don't suppose you want to nationalize this now private property.
ezrabrooks
05-23-2008, 09:30 PM
MMS reported http://www.mrm.mms.gov/MRMWebStats/D...07&datetype=AY ~$9.4 Billion in oil gas, ngl royalties plus $1.2 billion in bonuses last year for FEDERAL land. These were public lands now leased to E/P companies. I don't suppose you want to nationalize this now private property.
You never hear about the States and Fed being substantial royalty owners on US production, not to mention severance tax collectors on all of the oil and gas production...so the royalties and taxes paid have gone up, right along with the price of crude and natural gas. I wonder why that additional revenue hasn't been used to lower the price at the pump?
Ez
When you lease a car, do you have the right to sell the stereo?
When you rent a house, can you sell the furntiure?
Lease public land my ass - we need to change the way we do business.
That's not pinko-commie, it's capitalism.
Wasn't that Malcomb Forbes' theory? Use everyone else's first and save our until its all that's left?
That is a valid argument, but what if we destroy our economy in the process. Strategically, I like the idea, but I don't think we can afford to do it.
Gas is now at a price where it will start doing damage.
I still want that hump Bush to tell us where the cheap oil he promised us is?
The only think harder to find than his WMD are his promised outocmes.
46zilzal
05-24-2008, 01:18 PM
Gas is now at a price where it will start doing damage.
I still want that hump Bush to tell us where the cheap oil he promised us is?
The only think harder to find than his WMD are his promised outcomes.
Lots of people foretold what an idiot was at the helm.
ceejay
05-24-2008, 01:22 PM
When you lease a car, do you have the right to sell the stereo?
When you rent a house, can you sell the furntiure?
Lease public land my ass - we need to change the way we do business.
That's not pinko-commie, it's capitalism.
So who do you want to discover and develop these assets? The government? Exploration wells cost money, so does seismic data, etc. I guess you're a capitalist except for stuff you want.
Your leasehold analogy is flawed. Cars devalue by driving. Houses have wear and tear: carpet wears out, roofs need replacement.
hey hey, that's what I've been saying.
sorry, i missed the copyright...pls don't sue me.
:)
with gas and all can't afford lawyer anymore, that maybe one good of high oil I hadn't factored in, less lawyers.
BTW, just pumped first 4.09 per galllon last night.
went up 10cents in one day.
So who do you want to discover and develop these assets? The government? Exploration wells cost money, so does seismic data, etc. I guess you're a capitalist except for stuff you want.
Your leasehold analogy is flawed. Cars devalue by driving. Houses have wear and tear: carpet wears out, roofs need replacement.
Not at all. What is wrong with the people, who own the country, therefopre own the oil on public land, hiring the oil companies to find, drill and, process the oil, for which we agree to buy it all at a fair price for thier trouble?
Sharcropping for today. I call it 100% capitalism.
Cars do devalue, but you still leave all the assests in them.
House do have wear and tear, but you still do not sell the fixtures.
Once the oil has been pumped, and everyone has made thier profit, the land will worthless, of course. But the oil companies did to sell that which they never owned in the first place.
Now, merge this idea into lsbets and Chickenheads idea of saving all our oil unitl it is all that is left. Now, the oil companies are still going operate as now? Pump it out and sell on the open market to whoever meets the price?
As they do now.
46zilzal
05-24-2008, 09:57 PM
Learn from history: "accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Rather than go after a situation that is untenable (more oil, OLD thinking) go for change. Simple
First of all, speaking of old, are you plagerizing again? Was that quote from your or did your steal it?
Secondly, you are talking out of your hat, again.
Long term, there are many things we can be doing, first and foremost amoung them is nuclear power plants, the safest, most efficient source of energy. But your tree hugging whale kissing friends are against that, too.
Short term the IS NO substitute for oil. Fact.
46zilzal
05-25-2008, 01:13 AM
If you don't recognize the source you should go back to school.
JustRalph
05-25-2008, 05:43 AM
If you don't recognize the source you should go back to school.
Tom, he thinks he is somebody because he quoted the Declaration of Independence..................Ole Tommy Jefferson...........
I wonder how many of these quotes 46 would believe in now? Using them when convienent is an often used tactic by the left.
I have highlighted a few I think 46 might a have a problem with........
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
"If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained _ we must fight!" Patrick Henry
"(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..." George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
"Political interest [can] never be separated in the long run from moral right"
"Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are a gift from God? Thomas Jefferson
"The citizens of the U.S. are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society"
"We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government." James Madison
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson/B]
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"We must all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
[B]A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
pandy
05-25-2008, 07:15 AM
wow we are over $130 per barrel, gasoline at the pumps now over $4.00 per gallon. when the republican congress voted for the war in Iraq to protect our interests against terrorism, and the smooth flows of oil, we were at $24 per barrel. of course you must blame the democrat's for that one, its always their faults!
Remember those who insisted that this was as war for oil? Sounded silly then, even sillier now.
ceejay
05-25-2008, 02:14 PM
Not at all. What is wrong with the people, who own the country, therefopre own the oil on public land, hiring the oil companies to find, drill and, process the oil, for which we agree to buy it all at a fair price for thier trouble?
Who's taking the risk? The government? Oh yeah, that's the place all new ideas come from. :lol:
Where's oil discovered? In the geologists mind.
Once the oil has been pumped, and everyone has made thier profit, the land will worthless, of course. Actually one of the easiest places to find an oil field is under an old oil field. One company's worthless is often another company's discovery. Or, errr the governments.
Valuist
05-25-2008, 02:47 PM
I have said before, I look for oil to come down after the election. We may well be done seeing $2.50/gallon forever. As for the other alternatives:
If Obama wins, I expect solar and wind to benefit.
If McCain wins, I expect coal to benefit.
Natural gas will benefit regardless of who wins.
If we don't get rid of corn based ethanol, everybody loses.
boxcar
05-25-2008, 03:17 PM
Wicked politician's enactment of public policy has often gone to great lengths to undermine private morality.
Boxcar
Tom, he thinks he is somebody because he quoted the Declaration of Independence..................Ole Tommy Jefferson...........
I wonder how many of these quotes 46 would believe in now? Using them when convienent is an often used tactic by the left.
I have highlighted a few I think 46 might a have a problem with........
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
"If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained _ we must fight!" Patrick Henry
"(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..." George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
"Political interest [can] never be separated in the long run from moral right"
"Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are a gift from God? Thomas Jefferson
"The citizens of the U.S. are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society"
"We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government." James Madison
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson/B]
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"We must all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
[B]A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
When you lease a car, do you have the right to sell the stereo?
When you rent a house, can you sell the furntiure?
Lease public land my ass - we need to change the way we do business.
That's not pinko-commie, it's capitalism.
So now are you suggesting the government go into the oil business ?
boxcar
05-25-2008, 07:43 PM
So now are you suggesting the government go into the oil business ?
Of course, he is! Don't ya know, it's only Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Pharmaceuticals, Big Retailers, etc. -- all evil as they come? But Government just can't be big enough for these socialists! The bigger Government gets, the better they think it will be for all us. Big Gov is going to right all the wrongs.
Boxcar
ezrabrooks
05-25-2008, 08:05 PM
Not at all. What is wrong with the people, who own the country, therefopre own the oil on public land, hiring the oil companies to find, drill and, process the oil, for which we agree to buy it all at a fair price for thier trouble?
Sharcropping for today. I call it 100% capitalism.
Cars do devalue, but you still leave all the assests in them.
House do have wear and tear, but you still do not sell the fixtures.
Once the oil has been pumped, and everyone has made thier profit, the land will worthless, of course. But the oil companies did to sell that which they never owned in the first place.
Now, merge this idea into lsbets and Chickenheads idea of saving all our oil unitl it is all that is left. Now, the oil companies are still going operate as now? Pump it out and sell on the open market to whoever meets the price?
As they do now.
Do you think you just drill a hole in the ground...and produce oil and gas? I want to be there when a bureaucrat or politician tries to explain and justify a dry hole. A Federal Oil and Gas Company? Yeah, that is gonna happen..
wonatthewire1
05-25-2008, 09:43 PM
Of course, he is! Don't ya know, it's only Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Pharmaceuticals, Big Retailers, etc. -- all evil as they come? But Government just can't be big enough for these socialists! The bigger Government gets, the better they think it will be for all us. Big Gov is going to right all the wrongs. Boxcar
But Boxie - the size of the grubbyment has exploded under Bush - now what? The bigger it gets the less efficient it becomes and the more it spends.
Have you been to an airport recently? There are more TSA agents than passengers.
Next one in is going to have a hell of a time shrinking it
:eek:
46zilzal
05-25-2008, 09:46 PM
Isn't it handy to NOT THINK, put all your woes into one label and blame it all on a group. Worked for many a fascist, why not the new variety?
juanepstein
05-26-2008, 06:04 AM
Read about it.................. before you start popping your mouth off at somebody.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503534_pf.html
"are you nuts? He lost money"
this is the fkn answer you gave me ralph. which told me absolutley nothing. like im suppossed to take your word for it. thats why i said good answer. plus you can pop off to me but i cant toward you. wtf??!?!?
and the link you just posted means absolutely nothing either. the headlines say "may" and in the article it says "assets to be reported only within broad ranges" what does tha mean ralph?
ceejay
05-26-2008, 12:19 PM
Do you think you just drill a hole in the ground...and produce oil and gas? What, you don't do that? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
chickenhead
05-26-2008, 12:40 PM
Do you think you just drill a hole in the ground...and produce oil and gas? I want to be there when a bureaucrat or politician tries to explain and justify a dry hole. A Federal Oil and Gas Company? Yeah, that is gonna happen..
Tom didn't suggest anything like that.
He's basically saying sign a contract for the purchase of the oil at below market rates. If the oil companies think it's whatever, $30 a barrel oil to get, and the gov't hedges them with a $30 + $xx barrel contract for all the production, they're sharing the risk.
The oil company is risking that it is $30 a barrel to get to, the gov't is risking that the market price won't go below $30+$xx a barrel. Long term production contracts are pretty normal, they're often a benefit to both parties.
boxcar
05-26-2008, 01:23 PM
But Boxie - the size of the grubbyment has exploded under Bush - now what? The bigger it gets the less efficient it becomes and the more it spends.
Have you been to an airport recently? There are more TSA agents than passengers.
Next one in is going to have a hell of a time shrinking it
:eek:
And your point is? Have you read my tagline? Are you aware of the fact that I've never been a big Bush fan. And if I'm not a fan of Bush, do you think I'd like NoBama, the Princess of Darkness or McSilly any better?
Here's something to remember about Big Gov: Individual Rights will shrink will shrink in inverse proportion to Government Growth. Basically, right out of the commie handbook. But hey...this fact never bothered anyone on the extreme left.
Boxcar
Tom didn't suggest anything like that.
Thanks, CH, I am glad at least one here has reading comprehension skills.
:bang:
ezrabrooks
05-26-2008, 01:35 PM
Thanks, CH, I am glad at least one here has reading comprehension skills.
:bang:
You said "What is wrong with the people, who own the country, therefopre own the oil on public land, hiring the oil companies to find, drill and, process the oil, for which we agree to buy it all at a fair price for thier trouble?" That is creating a Federal Oil Company. You are hiring a Contract Entity to explore on your own leasehold. Instead of hiring an oil company...why don't you just turn over exploration of Public Lands to the US Geological Survey? Why not? It is simple...it will not work. You have to have an incentive to look for oil...not a cost plus 10%..
ezrabrooks
05-26-2008, 01:43 PM
Tom didn't suggest anything like that.
He's basically saying sign a contract for the purchase of the oil at below market rates. If the oil companies think it's whatever, $30 a barrel oil to get, and the gov't hedges them with a $30 + $xx barrel contract for all the production, they're sharing the risk.
The oil company is risking that it is $30 a barrel to get to, the gov't is risking that the market price won't go below $30+$xx a barrel. Long term production contracts are pretty normal, they're often a benefit to both parties.
Sure he was...if it walks like a duck, etc....
ceejay
05-26-2008, 01:52 PM
reading comprehension skills.
:bang:What I don't comprehend is WHO TAKES THE DRY HOLE/OPERATIONS risk? The government or the oil companies? Try googling an oldie but goodie dry hole: mukluk prospect. Here's a result. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1440&page=21
1984 Mukluk prospect in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. It cost about $1.5 billion, and no commercial oil or gas was discov- ered. Although predrilling geological and geophysical techniques for finding oil and gas have become increasingly more sophisticated in recent years, they are still far from providing clear images of the subsurface, including identifying the presence of oil and gas. There is no substitute for drilling a well to confirm geological models and to establish the presence of hydro- carbons.
Help me here, I'm just a dumb geologist.......
chickenhead
05-26-2008, 01:52 PM
You have to have an incentive to look for oil...not a cost plus 10%..
If most of the ANWR oil is economincally viable at $25/bbl (USGS)....there is a significantly big gap between "10%" and current prices. If ANWR is the great resource everyone has been slobbering over to drill for the last 20 years, it doesn't require anything like $130/bbl to develop. The oil companies would have fallen over each other to do it for $50/bbl a few years ago.
You guys have to be careful.....if you say the oil companies can't do it for less than $130 a barrel, then you cant criticize gov't for not opening it up 10 years ago, because under your theory, it wouldn't have been developed anyway.
Shit, put up a long term contract with reverse auction amongst the drillers to set the price. Let them sort it out. I'll book any amount of action that it doesn't end at $130.
What I don't comprehend is WHO TAKES THE DRY HOLE/OPERATIONS risk? The government or the oil companies? Try googling an oldie but goodie dry hole: mukluk prospect. Here's a result. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1440&page=21
Help me here, I'm just a dumb geologist.......
I never once mentioned drilling a dry hole. See, that is where the comprehension comes in. RIF.
ezrabrooks
05-26-2008, 02:08 PM
If most of the ANWR oil is economincally viable at $25/bbl (USGS)....there is a significantly big gap between "10%" and current prices. If ANWR is the great resource everyone has been slobbering over to drill for the last 20 years, it doesn't require anything like $130/bbl to develop. The oil companies would have fallen over each other to do it for $50/bbl a few years ago.
You guys have to be careful.....if you say the oil companies can't do it for less than $130 a barrel, then you cant criticize gov't for not opening it up 10 years ago, because under your theory, it wouldn't have been developed anyway.
Shit, put up a long term contract with reverse auction amongst the drillers to set the price. Let them sort it out. I'll book any amount of action that it doesn't end at $130.
At today's exploration costs, Anwar is not economically viable at $25 per bbl. I don't think any one said that it would take $130 per bbls to operate anywhere.. Right now the Feds have the right to take their royalty share of oil in kind...take that oil and supply the national reserve.. I have no idea how your 'reverse auction amongst the drillers' would work..hell, I don't know what you mean by 'drillers'...but, I doubt you would find much oil that way.
Sure he was...if it walks like a duck, etc....
No, he didn't.
And as far as Amwar goes, if it is such a loser no one would drill there, why keep prohibiting it? OK drilling and shut us all up. To quote a great man, a pioneer in his field, "All talky, no ballsy.":eek:
chickenhead
05-26-2008, 02:17 PM
At today's exploration costs, Anwar is not economically viable at $25 per bbl. I don't think any one said that it would take $130 per bbls to operate anywhere..
So something greater than $25, but less than $130. You think it's closer to $130 than $25?
I have no idea how your 'reverse auction amongst the drillers' would work..hell, I don't know what you mean by 'drillers'...but, I doubt you would find much oil that way.
You don't know how a reverse auction works? They're a pretty fundamental way to set a price for something. If you didn't want to use it to set the price/bbl, you could use it to set the royalty rate. If it doesn't work for drilling oil, then some fundamental tenets of capitalism are wrong.
ceejay
05-26-2008, 02:26 PM
I never once mentioned drilling a dry hole. See, that is where the comprehension comes in. RIF.You never did mention it but like the horseplaying game E/P is all about the risk.
I never mentioned risk either. I mentioned an opportunity. If the oil companies don't want to take it then someone else will.
ceejay
05-26-2008, 02:38 PM
Uh huh.....
Remember those who insisted that this was as war for oil? Sounded silly then, even sillier now.
You can't see it yet, but if it was for oil and we are not winning that fight, then it would make sense , perfect sense.
The lack of info in this country is astounding.
Keep one thing in mind, elections.....who do you think will win, not US, but Iraqi elections.
Ours mean nothing in this regard.
Think Gandhi and the British, the result will come to you someday.
".......they fight you , then you win"
chickenhead
05-26-2008, 02:47 PM
the point is, you own the land, you own the oil. You want to best deal possible for the oil that you own. You want to give the operator enough so that he does his thing (and makes your oil a liquid commodity), and not one penny more.
There is risk for the operator, there is risk in every business. The price needs to compensate the risk. The price required ain't $130/bbl.
I hold these truths to be self evident.
ceejay
05-26-2008, 03:03 PM
CH, do you know the likely result of your E/P model? IMO less supply, and higher prices.
I'll be good for me, because almost all my USA work is on private, not public land and less supply will mean higher prices. I don't suppose you favor government confiscation of private mineral rights.
Just one more question. In your business model will the gov guarantee prices when they go down?
ezrabrooks
05-26-2008, 03:09 PM
So something greater than $25, but less than $130. You think it's closer to $130 than $25?
You don't know how a reverse auction works? They're a pretty fundamental way to set a price for something. If you didn't want to use it to set the price/bbl, you could use it to set the royalty rate. If it doesn't work for drilling oil, then some fundamental tenets of capitalism are wrong.
Economics of ANWAR? I haven't a clue..but, with exploration and developement costs increasing the way they have in the past 2-3 years, I would think they are North of $25 per bb. I figure economics on deals in Texas all of the time..and they are all different. Areas that I wouldn't have gone near at $25 oil, are now being looked at $65 plus oil. I use a reverse auction technique all of the time in negotiating leases...consideration/royalty based on the quality/ risk of the individual prospect. Not sure about Fed leases, but State of Texas leases are sometimes bid based on a set monetary consideration and royalty to be paid...so that is not something new. Now don't change the subject..as this discussion started based on the Feds hiring some one to explore public lands. Maybe the term 'hiring' is causing the problem.
I never said hire anyone.
russowen77
05-26-2008, 03:41 PM
There is only one way to do Alaska. Open it up and get out of the way. No tax dollars necessary. If the folks who get the oil charge a premium price then the country will get more tax dollars. No need for fed involvement.
The lease thing leads to all kinds of political abuse.
ezrabrooks
05-26-2008, 03:57 PM
I never said hire anyone.
Whatever..
46zilzal
05-26-2008, 04:26 PM
March recorded the sharpest decrease in driving since 1942..
chickenhead
05-26-2008, 06:24 PM
I use a reverse auction technique all of the time in negotiating leases...consideration/royalty based on the quality/ risk of the individual prospect. Not sure about Fed leases, but State of Texas leases are sometimes bid based on a set monetary consideration and royalty to be paid...so that is not something new.
I figured that must be the way it is done, its the logical way to do it. From what I can see the Fed leases are all fixed at 12.5%. To me that doesn't make any sense....like you said, the risk is going to be different case by case, so why have a fixed lease. You're basically giving money away on high quality low risk propositions. Why would we want to do that? We own this stuff.
CH, do you know the likely result of your E/P model? IMO less supply, and higher prices.
I'll be good for me, because almost all my USA work is on private, not public land and less supply will mean higher prices. I don't suppose you favor government confiscation of private mineral rights.
Just one more question. In your business model will the gov guarantee prices when they go down?
We are talking about drilling a specific place, that is currently not being drilled. The result can be one of two things, either the same amount of supply, or more supply. Less supply is an impossibility. If you wanted to apply the reverse auction to all royalties on all gov't lands, it should lead to more production. Sometimes a job would require more royalty, other times less. No? The economics are all different, why would the split always be the same? It's almost guaranteed to be non-optimal to one party or the other in every case.
If I put ANWR up for bid, and said come and develop, you get standard 87.5% share (or whatever) up to $80 a barrel, and 12.50% from $80 up...you think that's a bad deal for the oil co?
Or let me ask this another way....if your company had a chance to put together that deal, you'd walk away?
Again, if ANWR doesn't make sense at $80/bbl, it has never made sense to begin with.
ezrabrooks
05-26-2008, 08:15 PM
CH... I know you think you are breaking new ground here...but sliding scale royalties have been around for a long time. Most of the time they are tied to the amount of production (larger the volume...the higher the per centage of royalty).. What it boils down to, you can prepare a contracted royalty in any manner the Lessor (mineral owner) desires.. The premise that you put forth could be used, if an agreement could be made as to what dictates the price of the product; however, the result should be that the Lessor, be it the Feds, State or Fee owners, use a royalty that will encourage exploration and production.
My whole disagreement with the topic was that the Federal Government has no business in trying to function as a oil and gas company. Acting as a Lessor for its mineral properties is a different situation...and the Market will dictate its success.
chickenhead
05-26-2008, 08:34 PM
CH... I know you think you are breaking new ground here...but sliding scale royalties have been around for a long time.
I don't give a rip how a private owner determines anything, do I? We are talking about Federal stuff. The stuff that we the people own. And sliding scale royalties have not been around in determining Federal royalties for development on Federal land. They are fixed.
I'm not claiming it's a new idea, I'm claiming it's a good idea. If you agree with that, good.
ezrabrooks
05-26-2008, 09:17 PM
I don't give a rip how a private owner determines anything, do I? We are talking about Federal stuff. The stuff that we the people own. And sliding scale royalties have not been around in determining Federal royalties for development on Federal land. They are fixed.
I'm not claiming it's a new idea, I'm claiming it's a good idea. If you agree with that, good.
You are wrong...but, since you are the expert, I will leave it at that.
Chick, we may not be experts, but we are the owners. Time to let those rat bastard inside the beltway just who works for who.
46zilzal
05-26-2008, 11:00 PM
TWO HUNDRED a barrel by next year according to PBS tonight.
chickenhead
05-26-2008, 11:03 PM
You are wrong...but, since you are the expert, I will leave it at that.
Wrong about what, exactly?
I have no reason to doubt you are an expert, but you haven't told me anything insightful this entire discussion. Teach me something, or do please stop. I'm a smart guy, I can handle it. I like to learn. I'm always happy to rethink something mid debate, when I get hit up with some knowledge. That's pretty much the whole reason I like to debate, to try and draw those things out, so I can learn something.
I have zero tolerance for self professed experts who can't seem to muster anything beyond "You're wrong". If that's the extent of expertise, then I'm an expert in nearly all fields.
You tell me you can't see how a reverse auction could possibly work, then you tell me you run them all the time, and they're common. You tell me what I laid out wouldn't work, then you tell me it would work.
Maybe I'm in the wrong business.
chickenhead
05-26-2008, 11:15 PM
Chick, we may not be experts, but we are the owners. Time to let those rat bastard inside the beltway just who works for who.
I just don't get it...you suggest we try to get a good price for something we own, and they accuse you of being a communist? That's crazy talk man.
chickenhead
05-27-2008, 12:06 AM
here's a good one:
Clinton Interior Dept. error leads to lost revenue for federal government; Bush admin. takes years to fix
In 1998 and 1999, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) under President Clinton issued over 1,000 leases to oil and gas companies which omitted the clause forcing companies to pay royalties if oil prices rose above $34 a barrel and natural gas rose above $4 per thousand cubic feet.[47] The New York Times exposed the problem in a February 14, 2006 article.[48] The Bush administration learned of the mistake, but initially opted not to address it. Interior Secretary Norton stated, “These are binding contracts that the government signed with companies...I don’t think we can change them just because we don’t like them.”[49][50][51]
As of 2007, the error had already cost the federal government over $1 billion, and was estimated to ultimately cost as much as $10 billion.[52]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/business/14oil.html
ezrabrooks
05-27-2008, 08:23 AM
Wrong about what, exactly?
I have no reason to doubt you are an expert, but you haven't told me anything insightful this entire discussion. Teach me something, or do please stop. I'm a smart guy, I can handle it. I like to learn. I'm always happy to rethink something mid debate, when I get hit up with some knowledge. That's pretty much the whole reason I like to debate, to try and draw those things out, so I can learn something.
I have zero tolerance for self professed experts who can't seem to muster anything beyond "You're wrong". If that's the extent of expertise, then I'm an expert in nearly all fields.
You tell me you can't see how a reverse auction could possibly work, then you tell me you run them all the time, and they're common. You tell me what I laid out wouldn't work, then you tell me it would work.
Maybe I'm in the wrong business.
As I said..you are wrong with your comment about fixed rate federal royalties. I never set myself up as an expert on Federal Mineral Leases...so don't try to hang that on me.
You guys are missing the 2 factors most responsible.
Speculation and THIS....
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/86515/
Iraq War May Have Increased Energy Costs Worldwide by a Staggering $6 Trillion
The oil economist Dr Mamdouh Salameh, who advises both the World Bank and the UN Industrial Development Organisation (Unido), told The Independent on Sunday that the price of oil would now be no more than $40 a barrel, less than a third of the record $135 a barrel reached last week, if it had not been for the Iraq war.
He spoke after oil prices set a new record on 13 consecutive days over the past two weeks. They have now multiplied sixfold since 2002, compared with the fourfold increase of the 1973 and 1974 "oil shock" that ended the world's long postwar boom.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/05/26/cnoil126.xml
Germany in call for ban on oil speculation
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 12:53am BST 27/05/2008
German leaders are to propose a worldwide ban on oil trading by speculators, blaming the latest spike in crude prices on manipulation by hedge funds.
It is the most drastic proposal to date amid escalating calls from Europe, the US and Asia for controls on market forces, underscoring the profound shift in the political climate since the credit crunch began. India has already suspended futures trading of five commodities.
No more than $40....speculation.
chickenhead
05-27-2008, 10:05 AM
As I said..you are wrong with your comment about fixed rate federal royalties. I never set myself up as an expert on Federal Mineral Leases...so don't try to hang that on me.
Federal lessees generally pay 12.5 percent (one-eighth) of the value of production from onshore leases and 16.7 percent (one-sixth) of the value from offshore leases as royalties. However, lower rates may apply for onshore production from marginally profitable fields and for offshore production from deep waters and certain largely unexplored areas of the Atlantic coast.(4) In some cases, the government may even waive royalties on oil and gas from low-output wells if market conditions warrant. In recent years, the royalties paid by lessees have averaged less than 10 percent of the value of oil from onshore leases and 15 percent of the value from offshore leases.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=2695&type=0&sequence=2
the 1/8th value royalty for onshore leases is set by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_Leasing_Act_of_1920
contrasted with say Canada (they produce a lot of oil, don't they?) where royalties can be as high as 35%.
http://www.fhoa.ca/rltyrate.htm
ezrabrooks
05-27-2008, 10:12 AM
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=2695&type=0&sequence=2
the 1/8th value royalty for onshore leases is set by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_Leasing_Act_of_1920
contrasted with say Canada (they produce a lot of oil, don't they?) where royalties can be as high as 35%.
http://www.fhoa.ca/rltyrate.htm
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/julqtr/30cfr260.110.htm (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/julqtr/30cfr260.110.htm)
Plus your NY Times Article...
chickenhead
05-27-2008, 10:20 AM
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/julqtr/30cfr260.110.htm (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/julqtr/30cfr260.110.htm)
hey hey :jump:
so for the outer shelf, they have an option for sliding royalties, great. Do you know if such a thing exists for onshore drilling (ANWR)?
from BLM:
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/questions_and_answers.html
What are the royalties?
The MMS collects a royalty on production of 12.5 percent for both competitive and noncompetitive leases.
Doesn't sound real fluid.
ezrabrooks
05-27-2008, 10:35 AM
hey hey :jump:
so for the outer shelf, they have an option for sliding royalties, great. Do you know if such a thing exists for onshore drilling (ANWR)?
There are different kinds of onshore lease proposals. Leases offered on KGS acreage are different than just normal simultaneous filings. If ANWAR is ever put up for lease bid there will be so many strings attached, that it will not look like any previous lease granted by the Feds.
As to a sliding scale method of determining royalty..you acted like it was this great idea. I was just pointing out that the idea had been around for a long time, and that any kind of lease trade can be made, but it must have both a Lessor...and a willing Lessee to be beneficial.
Although not sure that this is fact, but I would not be surprised if the majority of Federal Leases granted are to private citizens, so..get in involved, and go buy you a fist full, and then start pumping that oil and gas.
chickenhead
05-27-2008, 10:54 AM
As to a sliding scale method of determining royalty..you acted like it was this great idea. I was just pointing out that the idea had been around for a long time, and that any kind of lease trade can be made, but it must have both a Lessor...and a willing Lessee to be beneficial.
It is a great idea, not lessened in any way by the fact that it is how many private leases are handled. I'm always happy any time I spend a few minutes thinking about how a business model should work, and then find that that is how it works when it is working best.
Despite what you say, I can't find any evidence that it is in fact how Federal land leases work. Everything I see says 12.5%, or lower. Maybe that's wrong, maybe that's right, but that's all I can find, and I haven't seen anything else.
Obviously the bonus amt can pick up some of the variance, but I can't see any reason you'd give unlimited headroom, and not a tiered royalty based on price. They give relief at the low end, they should take more at the high end, or so it seems to me.
ezrabrooks
05-27-2008, 11:37 AM
It is a great idea, not lessened in any way by the fact that it is how many private leases are handled. I'm always happy any time I spend a few minutes thinking about how a business model should work, and then find that that is how it works when it is working best.
Despite what you say, I can't find any evidence that it is in fact how Federal land leases work. Everything I see says 12.5%, or lower. Maybe that's wrong, maybe that's right, but that's all I can find, and I haven't seen anything else.
Obviously the bonus amt can pick up some of the variance, but I can't see any reason you'd give unlimited headroom, and not a tiered royalty based on price. They give relief at the low end, they should take more at the high end, or so it seems to me.
I do not know what the bidding process is onshore for Known Geological Structures (KGS) are, and you are right that the bonus consideration paid is a big part of the trade, but I also believe that the royalty increases also. Bonus consideration up front should not be dismissed as trivial.
The problem here is that you are trying to compare a lease on ANWAR to the numerous Federal Leases that have been granted, and will continue to be granted. I really don't know what evidence exits that makes drilling in ANWAR a 'Lock'...but, I do know that the vast numbers of Federal Leases granted are never explored by any means..much less drilling. My point in all of this is that the terms of a lease trade, especially on a federal tract, should encourage development, inviting a risk taker to evaluate whether oil or gas exists under any given tract. After all of the work has been done..and the risk taken, it is easy to set back and say...hey! its our oil and gas, and we are entitled to a bigger piece of the pie.
BTW, what did you mean with..."It is a great idea, not lessened in any way by the fact that it is how many private leases are handled"
46zilzal
05-27-2008, 11:41 AM
Associated Press: Tues., March. 16, 2004
WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.
The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.
chickenhead
05-27-2008, 12:07 PM
The problem here is that you are trying to compare a lease on ANWAR to the numerous Federal Leases that have been granted, and will continue to be granted. I really don't know what evidence exits that makes drilling in ANWAR a 'Lock'...but, I do know that the vast numbers of Federal Leases granted are never explored by any means..much less drilling. My point in all of this is that the terms of a lease trade, especially on a federal tract, should encourage development, inviting a risk taker to evaluate whether oil or gas exists under any given tract. After all of the work has been done..and the risk taken, it is easy to set back and say...hey! its our oil and gas, and we are entitled to a bigger piece of the pie.
Fair enough, I can't argue with that.
ceejay
05-27-2008, 06:39 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices_38
Oil not flying today.....
JustRalph
07-24-2008, 01:45 AM
Oil......... in the Artic............ Why we aren't having a Gold Rush style race to the Arctic is beyond me
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aqEDMhrCvp28
Arctic May Hold 90 Billion Barrels of Oil, U.S. Says
July 23 (Bloomberg) -- The Arctic may hold 90 billion barrels of oil, more than all the known reserves of Nigeria, Kazakhstan and Mexico combined, and enough to supply U.S. demand for 12 years, the U.S. Geological Survey said.
One-third of the undiscovered oil is in Alaskan territory, the agency found in a study released today. By contrast, a geologic formation beneath the North Pole claimed by Russian scientists last year probably holds just 1.2 percent of the Arctic's crude, the U.S. report showed.
Energy producers such as Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Chevron Corp. have accelerated exploration of the northernmost regions for untapped reserves amid record prices and receding access to deposits in more hospitable climates. Russia's move to scrap a United Nations convention and carve out an exclusive Arctic zone sparked protests from Canada, the U.S., Norway and Denmark.
``Most of the Arctic, especially offshore, is essentially unexplored with respect to petroleum,'' Donald Gautier, the project chief for the assessment, said in the report. ``The extensive Arctic continental shelves may constitute the geographically largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum remaining on Earth.''
Russia dispatched a nuclear-powered icebreaker to the Arctic Ocean last year to map a subsea link between Siberia and the North Pole as part of a bid to refute a UN convention limiting resource claims beyond 200 miles (321 kilometers) offshore. Canada said earlier this month that it plans to counter the Russian overture with ``a very strong claim'' to Arctic exploration rights.
No Time Estimate
The U.S. report didn't include an estimate for how long it will take to bring the reserves to markets. Offshore fields in the Gulf of Mexico and West Africa can take a decade or longer to begin pumping oil.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.