[troy2000]

Quote:       Originally Posted by TXplt

The oil companies (like many others in the U. S.) are international and have international ties. That doesn't mean we (as people in the US) won't see the money -- loyalty or not money is money. They'd be brokering a deal w/AK (or whatever states they are drilling in) for drilling resulting in increased revenues for the people of the state. If we're smart, we'd use these to start building power plants. These oil companies employ people, many from the US. The profits will go to the shareholders, a great deal of whom are American (if you want to "stick it to" the oil companies with a windfall profits tax, go buy stock and cash it in after it goes up or collect the dividends--the shareholders are who own the company). I may be in the minority, but I don't necessarily believe that the oil companies are gouging us -- if they were, we'd see more competing oil companies forming. The demand has skyrocketed, the supply hasn't kept up, and the base stock is much more valuable. Their primary job (exploration and drilling) has "paid off" --hence greater profits. People weren't donating the oil companies money or calling them asking if they were OK when oil was $10 a barrel. Oil companies are merely a target for our displaced aggression at ourselves for being stupid and not developing alternative and competing energy sources. It's easier to blame someone for your plight than look in the mirror. Drilling here will also help the supply problem. If we're really concerned about this, rather than just saying 'no" we'll make a good deal and tax the oil being drilled (not too much to keep it cost competitive) using this money, dollar for dollar, to build power plants. There are solutions.

Bush and Congress gave oil companies a huge incentives package while they were in the most profitable period of their history, supposedly to encourage exploration and development. I haven't seen any corresponding investment of that money (or those record profits) in developing new wells.

The fact of the matter is that as long as they can make money hand-over-fist the way things are now, and get big tax breaks and concessions from our government on top of it without having to show results, they have no real incentive to change the way they're doing business.

I don't think I'm demonizing them or excusing the stupidity of the American public when I point that out.

And again, Alaska locals might profit from new oil development there, but the production going into the world market would have a negligible impact on U.S. prices, because it would simply be a drop in the bucket added to current world production.

[Rave]

Get da money,stay the course.

[AKHunter]

Oil production in Alaska is very expensive and complicated due to the extreme climate and the environmental sensitivity ( natural and political). Many may have forgotten that congress during the Clinton adminstration passed a bill allowing drilling to take place in ANWR. Slick Willy vetoed it.

Quote:      

And the next time someone starts agitating about all the oil in Alaska, they need to stop and realize most new production wouldn't even come to the States; it would ship straight to the Asian market and not affect prices here a bit. Those companies are international corporations, without a shred of loyalty to America.

Yes, it goes to the asian market. Now on the affect of the price of oil here is the kicker. In normal circumstances it will not affect the price of oil, but how many of you remember last summer when a (BP) spur line on the North Slope in Alaska suffered a leak due to corrosion ? The price of oil skyrocketed when they had to shut down production for the two or so weeks it took to by-pass and repair a failure due to lack of maintenance. BP was sued by the state and the feds for negligence. This event cost the State, BP and consumers millions of dollars. The price of oil after repairs and restoration of production never eased prices, they continued thier climb.

As to the loyalty issue, that is absolutely correct ,BP for example, could give a rats behind what happens here as long as they can get the oil out of the ground and money into their pockets.

In regard to access to oil reserves and drilling NOW, see here Upstreamonline - ExxonMobil loses Point Thompson stay . Some may want to rethink whether or not Big Oil manipulates the market. This is one example. The exception here is that it bit exxon on the butt. Likely Shell (my guess here) is going to pick up this lease and develope it. Shell is currently ramping up in a big way to explore newly purchased leases in the Chukchi Sea.

On a note of strategy where consumption and resource is concerned. I think in terms of national security. It is in the best interest of the USA to consume the resources of distant places before our own. What better way is there to hold an advantage over every other country than to use their nearest available energy resource before our own reserves?

[ArkansasHunter]

Some of the regulation are good such as low sulfer Diesel. We gotta try to clean up this planet and keep it clean.
So I'm not aposed to cleaner fuels.
I am for opening public lands for drilling of oil and it doesn't bother our Deer herds or wildlife here in Ark, Louisiana nor Texas either.

Maybe just the act of our goverment passing legistration to open public lands and waveing enviromental issues would cause oil price's to crash HARD world wide !

[troy2000]

Quote:       Originally Posted by AKHunter

Oil production in Alaska is very expensive and complicated due to the extreme climate and the environmental sensitivity ( natural and political). Many may have forgotten that congress during the Clinton adminstration passed a bill allowing drilling to take place in ANWR. Slick Willy vetoed it. Yes, it goes to the asian market. Now on the affect of the price of oil here is the kicker. In normal circumstances it will not affect the price of oil, but how many of you remember last summer when a (BP) spur line on the North Slope in Alaska suffered a leak due to corrosion ? The price of oil skyrocketed when they had to shut down production for the two or so weeks it took to by-pass and repair a failure due to lack of maintenance. BP was sued by the state and the feds for negligence. This event cost the State, BP and consumers millions of dollars. The price of oil after repairs and restoration of production never eased prices, they continued thier climb. As to the loyalty issue, that is absolutely correct ,BP for example, could give a rats behind what happens here as long as they can get the oil out of the ground and money into their pockets. In regard to access to oil reserves and drilling NOW, see here Upstreamonline - ExxonMobil loses Point Thompson stay . Some may want to rethink whether or not Big Oil manipulates the market. This is one example. The exception here is that it bit exxon on the butt. Likely Shell (my guess here) is going to pick up this lease and develope it. Shell is currently ramping up in a big way to explore newly purchased leases in the Chukchi Sea. On a note of strategy where consumption and resource is concerned. I think in terms of national security. It is in the best interest of the USA to consume the resources of distant places before our own. What better way is there to hold an advantage over every other country than to use their nearest available energy resource before our own reserves?

Of course, the BP oil DOES come here. But if I remember right, the oil companies plan to pipe the oil from ANWAR to ports to be loaded onto tankers, instead of piping it to the lower 48 like a lot of the existing production.

I agree about using theirs first, or I used to. But I'm starting to believe we won't manage to drain the rest of the world anytime soon, so I'm no longer sure it's a good policy to try.

[AKHunter]

They will continue to load it into tankers as they have for 20+ years now. The way it will change is if/when they build a natural gas pipeline connecting to Canadas existing pipeline system, that is all in serious debate now. Alaska has MASSIVE gas reserves. The state and the feds are screaming to get it to market but the oil companies are draggin their heels to get it done.... you guessed it. They are holding out for even higher prices. So one theory , and it makes perfect sense to me, if a pipeline to join with canadas' is built, build one that will accomodate gas and oil. Chances are even that the gas will be shipped to Valdez just as the oil is, then liquified for tanker transport.

[Wingwiper]

Before everyone here does a Rain Dance over 4.3 Billion barrels of oil. Understand we consume 21 million barrels per DAY and if you want a better idea of what 4.3 billion barrels means, it is about ONE years worth of oil for the U.S. ONE YEAR. That 4.3 billion barrels is not the ANSWER you all want, CONSERVING is. So start conserving and think of ways to cut back and not waste.

Troy

Oil wells are considered DRY when they are still 3/4 full. We do not have the technology to get the remaining oil out, so the well is capped, until we do.