The House of Representatives ( we still call them that even though they no longer represent the will of the people) actually took a rather bold move that would require companies (sitting on federal oil leases) to drill for oil or forego future oil leases.
I did not know that companies held these things. It would seem normal that if you buy a thing you would use it. But apparently, the oil companies are buying them and holding them.
I wonder if the ANWR leases and the Florida Coastal oil drilling is all about the lease and not about the drilling?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The House of Representatives on Thursday rejected legislation that would have required energy companies to develop oil and natural gas supplies on federal leases they have held for years or be denied future drilling access on government acres.
The House of Representatives almost made it law. They had more than half but not the required two-thirds vote ( 223-195).
What did our really intelligent White House say?
“Congress should be allowing firms to find oil where it will produce the least expensive gasoline for the American driver,” the White House said.
AS IF, the role of Congress is to calculate the cheapest production costs for oil companies and award oil leases into areas that reason. Pshaw.
How much land is sitting idle waiting for oil companies to drill?
Democrats said companies hold millions of undrilled acres in federal leases and the legislation would have pushed firms to develop those potential energy supplies.
6 responses so far ↓
Mike // July 16, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Its one thing to say these company’s hold leases, the real question is there any oil or gas in these area’s. Oil company’s lease land on speculation not on fact. They know there’s oil in ANWAR so they want to drill there. I can’t believe they wouldn’t drill in these other lease area’s if they knew oil or gas was there.
ReasonableCitizen // July 16, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Well, Mike, the problem is in your last statement. You can’t believe it. Even when the evidence is very clear.
The problem with us all is that we refuse to believe what is in front of our eyes. I believe that oil companies spent $37 Billion in March on oil leases but I cannot believe they spent $37 B without knowing if there was oil.
I also cannot believe that our government is smart enough to sell something that is not there (i.e., bamboozle oil companies with fraudulent oil leases).
It is what we choose to believe among an array of facts that often misleads us.
Believe first that giant corporations are about making money the easiest and cheapest way possible and you will have some additional wisdom.
Chuck Norton // July 17, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Hi Reasonable Citizen – You asked so I am happy to help answer.
“Oil companies acquire leases in the expectation that some of them contain sufficient oil and gas to cover the total costs. Yet it takes years to move through federal permitting, exploration and development. The U.S. Minerals Management Service notes that only one of three wells results in a discovery of oil that can be recovered economically. In deeper water, it’s one of five. All this involves huge risks, capital investment – and time.”
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121478199392114387.html
Drilling leases are not permanent, they are a lease for so many years and then the lease expires. I explain in GREAT detail why some leases do not get used on my blog.
Here is a lil peek at what I explain on my blog –
“Indeed there are leases that have oil that we can get to but aren’t and WHY is that? Because eco-extremists in league with the Democratic Party have prevented the building of pipelines and other needed infrastructure to make use the oil once we have drilled for it. ANWR by comparison has all of the proper needed infrastructure nearby.”
Also if we don’t have the refineries to make use of that oil….. and we have been prevented by ec0-extremists from building those refineries for 30 years….
Chuck Norton // July 20, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Hi RC,
I just thought I would let you know that Factcheck.org weighed in and they said much of what I posted on my blog. Just click on my name to see the post.
Take care, Chuck
/quote
That’s because these leased lands that don’t contain productive drilling operations likely are not lying idle as Obama implies. There are a lot of steps and procedures involved in setting up a productive oil well on leased land, both onshore and off. The Bureau of Land Management’s Web site lists the regulatory hurdles that need to be cleared as part of the larger five-step life cycle of a well. The path to setting up an offshore drilling operation is even longer, as shown in a large flow chart developed by the MMS.
And there is a lot of activity occurring on leased lands that does not qualify as “production.” For 2006, the BLM reported that there were 77,257 productive holes onshore in the U.S. Beyond that, there were 6,738 applications for drilling permits, 4,708 holes in which companies had begun drilling and 3,693 where drilling had ended among onshore lands. That’s a total of more than 15,000 holes that were being proposed, started or finished that do not count as “productive” holes. And that doesn’t even include holes that might have been continually drilled throughout the year for exploratory reasons.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_the_democrats_correct_in_stating_that.html
ReasonableCitizen // July 20, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Thanks for coming back and showing me this information.
It does help. If the “in process” holes are not counted as ‘productive’ that may be a significant amount.
Certainly, the number of holes were a net increase between opened and closed assuming that the BLM was reporting only the newly closed and not the accumulated total of closed wells.
Thanks for showing me the way. RC
Maggie Debose // October 16, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I wonder how much oil companies pay for those leases? Billions, I would guess. Billions paid to the US Government. Maybe there are good reasons for those “oil company tax breaks”. What is the US government doing with that land otherwise? Are the environmentalists going to make up that income? I doubt it.