It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

H R 6515- Require Oil Companies To Drill On Lands They Own

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
H.R. 6515: To amend the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976

Watching Cspan right now. The bill on the floor would require the Oil Companies to drill on over 68MILLION Acres they currently lease from the government but refuse to drill on.

That's right. While Bush Screams about offshore drilling the oil companies refuse to drill on 68MILLION Acres of land they are leasing from the government. The Dems voted YAY to require the oil companies to drill on these lands or lose the leases. The Reps said NAY.

Why? Why do the Reps refuse? I mean hello with oil at an all time high why shouldn't we force the oil companies to drill on the MILLIONS of Acres they lease to do just that but refuse to.

WHy are they bitching about off shore oil when some of these MILLION of Acres are offshore that they refuse to drill on. Why are they bitching about drilling in Alaska when some these MILLION of Acres are in Alaska? Why are the oil companies and republicans bitching about oil and drilling then refuse to drill on MILLION of Acres of land they are leasing from the government to do just that?


mod edit, spelling in title, & repost link


[edit on 17-7-2008 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Just because there is 68 million acres of land available for drilling doesn't mean it will produce significant oil. Why don't they tell you that? Why don't they tell you just because they leased the land they still have to get permits to drill on it?

Everyone knows about the 68 million acres. Everytime a Democrat opens their mouth they spew that talking point.

Why don't they tell you about the 1.1 BILLION ACRES that are off-limits? Land that is known to hold significant quanities of oil.

What other country on earth is restricted from drilling on their own land?

[edit on 17-7-2008 by RRconservative]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Just because there is 68 million acres of land available for drilling doesn't mean it will produce significant oil. Why don't they tell you that? Why don't they tell you just because they leased the land they still have to get permits to drill on it?

Everyone knows about the 68 million acres. Everytime a Democrat opens their mouth they spew that talking point.

Why don't they tell you about the 1.1 BILLION ACRES that are off-limits? Land that is known to hold significant quanities of oil.

What other country on earth is restricted from drilling on their own land?

[edit on 17-7-2008 by RRconservative]


Do you have any idea how the oil industry actually works?

They do not lease the land if they are not going to get return on it. It is that simple. They have geologists that go in well ahead of time and take core samples and geological surveys. When all is said and done, they are at least 98% sure they are going to be getting oil from that site.

As to not drilling on some of their land (I assume the Alaska Wildlife Refuge is in there), somethings are more important than oil.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Rook1545
I dunno about that. My father sold the mineral rights to our place (with restrictions) to an oil company years ago. I know of no oil in this area.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Rook1545
I dunno about that. My father sold the mineral rights to our place (with restrictions) to an oil company years ago. I know of no oil in this area.

TheRedneck


Both oil companies I worked for spent at least 2 years researching sites to make sure they weren't going to be wasting money. Granted there are a couple of times where they get "pysched" out by the competition, but for the most part they know what they are doing. I have seen them by from the neighbor of the guy who does have oil because he won't sell and directional drill it.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Rook1545
Well, I can't exactly call you a liar, because I really don't know. What you say makes good sense from an economic aspect, but as I said, I have never heard of any oil around this area.

We all thought it was pretty strange someone would pay us for something that didn't exist at the time. Maybe they know something we don't.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
The debate showed a map. The land in Alaska being leased has 6.68BILLION barrels of oil in estimated oil. He pointed out this is BILLIONS more than what ANWR has. Yet again the oil companies refuse to drill on them.

WTF!? 6.68BILLION barrels times 143 dollars equals... 955.24BILLION dollars of oil. So why do the oil companies and Reps refuse to drill?

Its not like ANWR where Oil and Reps want to drill but can't because its restricted they already have this land. This land is being leased to them. They are spending millions on this leased land yet refuse to drill. WHY!? If I had 955.24BILLION dollars sitting under land I'm spending millions on leasing from the government I'd sure as hell be drilling there.

And this is just the land in ALaska, not including the stuff off shore they are leasing or other places.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Maybe because there is already oil production in your state they are going out on a limb (or they have crappy geologists), and hoping that since there is already oil in the state, that they can score some without alot of work.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by KriegerSo why do the oil companies and Reps refuse to drill?


Let me clear some of the confusion that the Dems have put into your head.

First, the Republicans are NOT refusing to drill. They are voting against FORCING privately held companies to drill in areas that they've already concluded were not economically profitable to drill in.

Second, the entire issue of where companies drill comes down to cost of extracting the oil vs. income from selling the oil. The oil companies have already concluded that it is not cost effective to pursue oil in the areas in question.

So why do the Democrats who voted for this bill presume to know more about how the oil companies should run their business than the oil companies do?

It's incredible that this bill even came to a vote. Since when does Congress have legal authority to force private businesses to explore for oil?



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Just because there is 68 million acres of land available for drilling doesn't mean it will produce significant oil. Why don't they tell you that? Why don't they tell you just because they leased the land they still have to get permits to drill on it?

Everyone knows about the 68 million acres. Everytime a Democrat opens their mouth they spew that talking point.

Why don't they tell you about the 1.1 BILLION ACRES that are off-limits? Land that is known to hold significant quanities of oil.

What other country on earth is restricted from drilling on their own land?

This. Exactly.

Well, and...


Originally posted by jamie83
Let me clear some of the confusion that the Dems have put into your head.

First, the Republicans are NOT refusing to drill. They are voting against FORCING privately held companies to drill in areas that they've already concluded were not economically profitable to drill in.

Second, the entire issue of where companies drill comes down to cost of extracting the oil vs. income from selling the oil. The oil companies have already concluded that it is not cost effective to pursue oil in the areas in question.

So why do the Democrats who voted for this bill presume to know more about how the oil companies should run their business than the oil companies do?

It's incredible that this bill even came to a vote. Since when does Congress have legal authority to force private businesses to explore for oil?

This.

[edit on 18-7-2008 by Johnmike]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Because the Oil Companies are making billions in profit. Not income, profit. The money that goes into their foreign bank accounts and the GOP pockets.

Because they say supply is a reason for high prices.

Because they have BILLIONS of barrels sitting on lands they are leasing but refuse to drill on.

Because the land is Federal Land so the Federal Government should have some say in what is done. If they say the people leasing Federal Land need to do more then sit on it but actually use it then that is their right as it is their land.

Also, stop bitching about offshore drilling when you refuse to drill off shore on land you are leasing for millions of dollars to drill on.

Do you hear that? STOP BITCHING ABOUT OFFSHORE DRILLING WHEN YOU REFUSE TO DRILL OFFSHORE ON LAND YOU ARE LEASING FOR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO DRILL ON!



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
And I guess if they can't bitch about offshore drilling when they refuse to drill offshore they have nothing to say.

Anyways, who here would turn down a 955 billion dollar pay check? Anyone? No? THEN GET DRILLING IN ALASKA! And not to mention the other billions of dollars of oil they refuse to drill.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
they haven't been drilling because it's been cheaper to buy the oil from overseas. as the price of those overseas markets increase, the option to actually drill here becomes more viable. as the price at the pump continues to increase, people will cut down on the traveling, they will lose sales, and well, sooner or later, it will become more feasible to tap into what they have here. in the meantime, I've got a feeling that those leases are making a strong contribution to the "assett" category of their balance sheets, making it easier to sell stocks and get loans.

I still say that there's plenty of oil tapped in texas and capped. texas was booming for the first part of the 80's, till reagan got into office, quieted down the tension with Iran, and the price of oil from that part of the world began to fall...then well, the wells were capped, the texas economy went into the tubes because that was what it was based on .....the oil.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by dawnstar]



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by KriegerSo why do the oil companies and Reps refuse to drill?


First, the Republicans are NOT refusing to drill. They are voting against FORCING privately held companies to drill in areas that they've already concluded were not economically profitable to drill in.


Why don't the oil companies give up the leases then? If it is not viable for them to make a profit from drilling there, why keep paying millions to lease the land?

I am not against oil companies doing more offshore drilling, so don't give them new leases until they give up the old leases.

On another note, they need to build new refineries before they start pumping any new oil, and upgrade the ones they have. There have been no new refineries built since the early 1970s. The refineries we have already, have not been upgraded from analog to digital. So in addition to buying our crude oil from other countries, we are also buying refined fuel. The Supply and Demand issues have less to do with OPEC, and more to do with the 'peak oil' bottleneck of Refining. We have almost a hundred million more people in the US being supplied with almost the same refining capabilities as 30 years ago, maybe less because the refineries have not been upgraded and have started to degrade.

Much of the discussion has already been had here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

To me it doesn't make much sense to demand new frontiers to drill, when you have none of the support infrastructure you would need in order for it to be of any use.

DocMoreau



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
It's incredible that this bill even came to a vote. Since when does Congress have legal authority to force private businesses to explore for oil?


I missed this...

So let me make this clear, you think that Congress should give away the unexplored areas that may actually have no oil ("not economically profitable to drill in") , because they want the oil companies to completely explore all options on the lands that they have already have authorized for exploration? Right?

I could ask my own rhetorical styled question:
'Since when does Congress have legal authority to force American citizens to give away soverignty over their natural resources and rights for the ease and profitability of the Multi-National Oil Companies?'

What is so hard about asking the Oil Companies to 'put up, or shut up' in regard to the lands they already lease?

What is so hard about asking the Oil Companies to invest their record profits in maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure of their existing refining capabilities as well?

Our price at the pump still has the 'speculation' of refineries being destroyed during Hurricane Katrina. The price never came down, but the refineries got through pretty well, and were back up in no time.

I am not sure the American People are willing to listen to the cries about lack of profits from the Oil Companies. Maybe if they had not wasted so much of it giving away 400 million dollar retirement packages... Exxon CEO Defends Predecessor’s $400 Million Retirement Package

Pleading poverty about the lands that they already lease, is not going to get them more leases in my opinion.
DocMoreau



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
The Mineral Leasing Act (for onshore production): Section 17(e) stipulates that an oil company must have a producing well within 10 years or surrender the leases. Source: 30 U.S.C. 226(e)
www.law.cornell.edu...

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: (for offshore production): Stipulates that an oil company must produce energy between 5 to 10 years (in the government’s discretion) or surrender the lease. Source: 43 U.S.C. 1337(b)
www.law.cornell.edu...

When did the Oil Companies start the current leases they have? It would seem like their leases should be up soon anyway, so what is the problem with giving up the leases?

If they haven't found anything, give them up... Bush has been in office 7 years, 7 months... When were these leases signed? Before he was in office? If so, their leases should be up anytime.

That is, unless the Oil Companies found oil, drilled a 'producing well' and then capped said well because there is no where to refine it.

DocMoreau



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Thank you Doc.

And again, WHY ARE THE REPUBLICANS BITCHING ABOUT OFFSHORE DRILLING THEN VOTING AGAINST OFFSHORE DRILLING!?"

Also, in one post RR contradicts himself.

First he says it is the devil and anti american and we must exterminate all puppies and kittens if the oil companies have to drill for oil.

Then he turns around and bitches about and says it is the devil and anti american and we must exterminate all puppies and kittens because... oil companies not being allowed to drill for oil.

So which is it? Are the Dems the devil anti American and we must exterminate all puppies and kittens because they are trying to force oil companies to drill up BILLIONS IN BARRELS OF OIL or are the Dems the devil anti American and we must exterminate all puppies and kittens because they won't let oil companies drill offshore?



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
i know this is a stretch...but did it ever occur to anyone that the shortage is planned, so the oil companies can make more money? why drill when the oil you are already pumping becomes more valueable every day? remember ...the #1 goal of any corporation is to make more money then last year. incentive, my friends, its all about incentive.

soooo...why would any company put MORE oil on the global market, which would have the affect of driving down the cost and thus profits. it makes no sense.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by jimmyx]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Oh I agree JimmyX. I thought that was implied by what I was saying. That not building a new oil refinery (or serious upgrades) in the United States since the 1970s puts a serious bottleneck on the supply, thus increasing the demand. The threat of Peak Oil helped the Oil Companies decide that it is not in their best interests to increase supply.

The current demand to 'Drill Now' is so asinine when it comes to the solutions being presented. Even if the territory that is currently leased doesn't contain much oil, at least the bureaucratic steps of obtaining the leases are al ready out of the way. Get them online, and then ask for new territories when the fields are up and running and starting to dry up.

I would like any of the proponents for opening up new leases to the oil companies to present to us why the oil companies won't give up the leases they have in order to obtain new ones. If there is no oil in those areas, then the government could designate those areas of territory as protected to balance out opening up the currently protected ones.

I would also like to know if the oil companies are actually striking oil and capping the wells in order to keep their leases, even though the oil in the ground is not as plentiful as they would like.

Give back the leases if you are not going to use them.
DocMoreau



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 06:05 AM
link   
That's exactly what it is. Why do you think the GOP is doing everything they can to make the oil companies as much money as possible before the elections? They know they are screwed. A landslide isn't the word to describe it. Catastrophic armegeddon to the GOP isn't even powerful enough what will happen.

I know GOP, "The people LOVE being sodomized at the gas pumps by the GOP and they LOVE having their rights taken away so Halliburton's stock will go up another half a point. The people love having their taxes go to Big Oil and Halliburton. The people LOVE that the GOP say they can't have tax payed healthcare while the same GOP go to the doctor on our taxes. The people LOVE the Iraq war and want another one with Iran that the GOP is promising. The people HATE diplomacy and LOVE sending their children off to die so Halliburton can charge more billions for more poison water and food they don't serve to our troops. McBush08!"

But for the majority of the people out there, the GOP are screwed and this is why! The Dems try to do something about the price of oil by making the oil companies drill for oil on lands they lease and the GOP tries to block it. Cause you know, that 955billion in oil isn't needed as prices go up everywhere. Oh sure the little man is paying twice as much on groceries because it costs more to deiver the product to the store but they love that right? Who needs that 955billion dollars in oil that is just in Alaska not to mention all the other places the oil companies refuse to drill in.

Also, again, why are the Dems are the devil and anti american and we must exterminate all puppies and kittens if the oil companies have to drill for oil offshore but... the Dems are the devil and anti american and we must exterminate all puppies and kittens because they won't let them drill offshore? Which is it?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join