Truth about ANWR: Major Deflection by Oil Companies.

Until yesterday, I was buying into the fact that we have shot ourselves in the foot for not permitting drilling in ANWR and offshore areas.

Today I feel abused, and here is why:

resourcescommittee.house.gov...

Energy companies are not using the federal lands and waters that are already open to drilling. The 68 million acres of leased but inactive federal land have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. This would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75 percent. Oil and gas companies, however, are not required to demonstrate diligent development

The oil companies are using their inability to drill in ANWR, and off shore areas, as a major excuse for jacking up gasoline prices. They already have plenty of areas to develop. But they are complaining that they need ANWR. It is convenient and dishonest deflection.

It reminds me of a lazy brat, who says he is too tired to do any housework. His parents let him off the hook. "Get a good nights rest and start tomorrow," they generously tell him. The next day, he still refuses to do his chores. "I'm still too tired," he complains. "I need a king size feather bed."

[edit on 21-6-2008 by Buck Division]

Further research.

Maybe these currenly leased areas aren't productive? Not so:

resourcescommittee.house.gov...

In the last four years, the Bureau of Land Management has issues 28,000 permits to drill on public land; yet in the same time, 19,000 wells were actually drilled. That means that companies have stockpiled nearly 10,000 extra permits to drill that they are not using to increase domestic production.

Further, despite the federal government's willingness to make public lands and waters available, of the 47 million acres of on-shore federal lands that are currently being leased by oil and gas companies, only about 13 million acres are actually "in production". Similar trends are evident offshore as well.

Oil and gas companies would not buy leases to this land without believing oil and gas can be produced there, yet these same companies are not producing from areas already under their control.

If we extrapolate…that would nearly double total US oil production, and be more than six times the estimated peak production from the Artic Natural Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)

I think it is obvious -- there is plenty of motivation to gather up all the oil producing lands. That is easy, and solidifies the energy monopoly. But why drill this land, and increase supply? That would be stupid, from a business perspective. Much better to make excuses, and keep supply down and profits high.

Oil companies do not set the prices of oil, yes they profit on the refineries the have to process oil and with the wealth they have they pretty much may be behind the speculators that are driving the prices of oil to the roof, because a lot of wealth is needed to buy speculations.

Now, this companies are sitting on a lot of profits thanks to the last eight years of our oilman president bush.

Another thing that should blow your mind off, they has been able to get away from paying billions of dollars on royalties for the leases to the government since they have been holding the lands.

Interesting.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by marg6043]

I guess I was a little slow on the draw here. There is an excellent thread running on this topic in the "Breaking News" section, from three days earlier.

Here is that thread:

Bush Urges Congress to Lift Offshore Drilling Ban

Basic concensus of that thread: we should drill in ANWR and offshore, but we should also demand performance of the oil companies without making them a scapegoat for all the oil problems we have.

That seems pretty reasonable to me, given our current situation.

That is my final word in this thread, for now.

there must be another side to this story

can't or won't drill in ANWR, off-shore
billions in profit, falling dollar
no new refineries, no new drilling
win oil war, price goes up
euro instead of $ for world oil markets

i think oil is doomed

new energy source is on its way

I heard Sean Hannity blabbering the other day about this....
I just fail to see where treating these guys like the crooks they are is going to hurt our economy. The CEO's of most of these companies are collecting RECORD PROFITS from the wholesale racketeering of America.

By just about any measure, the past three years have produced one of the biggest cash gushers in the oil industry’s history. Since January of 2002, the price of crude has tripled, leaving oil producers awash in profits. During that period, the top 10 major public oil companies have sold some $1.5 trillion worth of crude, pocketing profits of more than $125 billion.

Link to source.

Anyone think they pay taxes on that?

Buck, I knew I would like this thread when I read the story ending with the "king size feather bed"

I also think all this talk of "oil" is also deflecting from talk of "natural gas". Iran has the second largest ng reserves (Russia #1), with a proposed pipeline to India through Pakistan. LNG may be the "oil" of the future. Maybe its really what companies want, and they mightily want all the leases they can get.

Anyway...here's something I don't understand...and maybe someone can explain it to me...my husband was going through a recreational forum and saw posters talking about oil tankers sitting offshore in Texas and California where the posters live, sitting there because there is no place to put it. Looks like Americans have cut back and aren't needing that oil.

Something tells me the bigger picture in all this is "The war on the middle class".

reply to post by Grafilthy

Anyone think they pay taxes on that?

Yes.

Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes). Link

Cool thread, stared and flagged.

I believe that there are likely several disinformation campaigns going on here.

It is my belief that all the NOISE the oil companies and their lackies (Bush, McCain, etc) is to draw our attention away from the REAL solutions to the energy crisis, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY.

For oil companies to produce more crude and for refineries to make more gas the country will need to invest in increasing our infrastructure that allows for both. Oil companies always have a good excuse for not being able to afford this on their own, or do any thing else on their own for that matter, so any such move would be highly subsidized.

This is what they do not want you to think about. Rather than waking up to the realization that pumping billions of tax payer dollars into big oil /gas the USA should put that money in to Alternative Energy and the future!

This scares them, as it is an inevitable shift that all they can do is forestall. They would prefer you stress over prices, thus they make them artificially high. Once you are panicked enough because your world is teetering on the brink of being broke they will push through all sorts of crap that will extend the life of big oil and gas and the Carbon Economy.

reply to post by Animal


Indeed! Alternative energy should be a driving force for a 21st century economy. Unfortunately, the "shining city upon a hill" still shines based on a carbon based economy.
It is important to remember that one of the first things Ronald Reagan did upon entering the White House was to remove the solar panels put there under Carter. That was a signal to oil companies that there would be no talk of alternative energy and a symbol to Americans that the oil crisis is over.

We could have been a world leader in renewable energy, helping China, India and others to avoid the pitfalls of carbon (a major one being war for resources). Instead, our leaders chose to continue to put all their eggs in one basket. For Americans and the world, the basket has fallen from our hands, and the eggs are breaking.

Carbon would still continue to play a role on stage, just not the monologue it has been for so long.

Ok, apparently nobody heard me when I said it was an attack on the middle class. I hate repeating myself.

Read this:
www.prisonplanet.com...

Then read this:

Americans don't benefit from the Globalists' control of Iraqi oil because the agenda is to artificially restrict global oil supplies in order to jack up prices and reduce the living standards of industrial countries.

This artificial scarcity is the stated goal of Bilderberg luminaries like Kissinger and José Manuel Barroso , who have sworn to inflate prices up to $200 dollars a barrel and spark the onset of a "post-industrial revolution", which translates as another economic depression and a wholesale "correction" of living standards that will all but obliterate the middle class.

Source: www.infowars.com...

The gas hike has very little to do with alternative energy sources. Instead it is the elite's way of enslaving the people.

Originally posted by Promecus
Ok, apparently nobody heard me when I said it was an attack on the middle class. I hate repeating myself.

It absolutely needs to be repeated, Promecus. This is an excellent citation, and really hammers the point home. Serious, harsh reality. Big star.

Originally posted by desert
reply to post by Animal

 

Indeed! Alternative energy should be a driving force for a 21st century economy. Unfortunately, the "shining city upon a hill" still shines based on a carbon based economy.
It is important to remember that one of the first things Ronald Reagan did upon entering the White House was to remove the solar panels put there under Carter. That was a signal to oil companies that there would be no talk of alternative energy and a symbol to Americans that the oil crisis is over.

We could have been a world leader in renewable energy, helping China, India and others to avoid the pitfalls of carbon (a major one being war for resources). Instead, our leaders chose to continue to put all their eggs in one basket. For Americans and the world, the basket has fallen from our hands, and the eggs are breaking.

Carbon would still continue to play a role on stage, just not the monologue it has been for so long.

A really excellent post man! I could not agree more with everything you say.

What I like the most is your point that our government made the decision to take the road to where we are today. There is a plain partnership of industry and government in this country that has had devastating impacts on US citizens.

Promecus this leads into what you are talking about (sorry I do not do Prison Planet). This link between industry and the government has been a series of devastating blows to the middle class. It is without a doubt a situation where corporations and their money are more important than 'we the people' who SHOULD be, by and large, middle class. Sorry to ignore your point.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by Animal]

I do agree that an alternative source of energy would be the solution. However, sadly when people come out with such their inventions tend to 'disappear'.

The fact is oil from the Middle East is very clean and requires the bare minimum refining. More profit for the oil companies. Add to that India's and China's thirst for oil and Russia starting to use more and more of their own oil, and we will be paying $6 a gallon soon. How many people (besides Hollywood types) would really buy an electric or fuel cell vehicle? They like the power of the internal combustion motor. Don't get me started on the waste of corn for ethanol. It even pollutes much more than gas. Until we start going to car dealers and demanding change, it will be the same.

reply to post by kidflash2008


agree with you about power. why do car companies produce road cars that have speeds up to 160 + miles per hour? porsche and ferraris that go even faster! really, who needs that kind of speed and where can you use it except for empty desert straight aways. the only reason is power. even though it is not practical, once a person feels that engine throbbing underneath (small sexual thrill for some, much bigger for others) they lose common, practical sense. i am not a gear head. never interested in engines or cars, really. even i like the sound of a 67 vette or mustang or a one of the aboves engine. still would not buy one though.

Originally posted by kidflash2008
The fact is oil from the Middle East is very clean and requires the bare minimum refining. More profit for the oil companies. Add to that India's and China's thirst for oil and Russia starting to use more and more of their own oil, and we will be paying $6 a gallon soon. How many people (besides Hollywood types) would really buy an electric or fuel cell vehicle? They like the power of the internal combustion motor. Don't get me started on the waste of corn for ethanol. It even pollutes much more than gas. Until we start going to car dealers and demanding change, it will be the same.

I couldn't say, one way or the other, about how easy it is to refine one nation's oil over another. However, I can say that when it comes to electric cars you might want to take a look at these guys....
www.teslamotors.com...

Sadly, most of the world's best electric cars are not permitted in the states.

reply to post by desert


tankers sit offshore so Big Oil can say supply is tight so the price goes up. Whoever said that Oil companies aren't manipulating the market needs a huge reality check