Drilling in ANWR would only save us 75 cents per barrel... 10 YEARS from now.

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by motivez

Since when does a company have a duty to compensate the American people for the ability to operate within our borders (aside from paying taxes)?

Since they don't own the land and subsequently the oil beneath it.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

That's what I'm talking about. Say ANWR. What do we get in return for letting them drill?

Umm how about gasoline?

If its federal/state lands they will get royalties/proceeds.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

Since they don't own the land and subsequently the oil beneath it.

So you're saying our drilling in ANWR should be a government run operation?

Or, the government should have control over what happens to the oil there?

Since when is that a conservative position?

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Umm how about gasoline?

If its federal/state lands they will get royalties/proceeds.

Which is what I thought. Wonder why this is never talked about.

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by motivez

So you're saying our drilling in ANWR should be a government run operation?

Or, the government should have control over what happens to the oil there?

Since when is that a conservative position?

That's not what I'm saying at all. If you own some land with a bunch of trees on it and a logging company says they want the trees, you're not going to let them take the trees out of the kindness of your heart. You're not going to be happier with cheaper wood based products, you're going to be compensated for it. Same thing goes for coal, oil and other natural resources. I'm assuming ANWR is federal land and I'd expect the government would get compensated for the loss of their natural resource.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

That's not what I'm saying at all. If you own some land with a bunch of trees on it and a logging company says they want the trees, you're not going to let them take the trees out of the kindness of your heart. You're not going to be happier with cheaper wood based products, you're going to be compensated for it. Same thing goes for coal, oil and other natural resources. I'm assuming ANWR is federal land and I'd expect the government would get compensated for the loss of their natural resource.

What exact situation are you talking about? Oil companies drilling ANWR? While I'm sure there would be some sort of payment, it can't be too much otherwise it'd drive up the cost of the oil extracted (and we're kinda going for the reduction of that number).

If you're referring to places like China who will be drilling there, they aren't going onto our land to get it, they're going to international waters and drilling down to get at what is likely the same pocket of oil. At least that's how I read 6speed's comment, and if true, we're shooting ourselves in the foot by not making some sort of plan to get the oil out ourselves.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

What exact situation are you talking about? Oil companies drilling ANWR? While I'm sure there would be some sort of payment, it can't be too much otherwise it'd drive up the cost of the oil extracted (and we're kinda going for the reduction of that number).

If you're referring to places like China who will be drilling there, they aren't going onto our land to get it, they're going to international waters and drilling down to get at what is likely the same pocket of oil. At least that's how I read 6speed's comment, and if true, we're shooting ourselves in the foot by not making some sort of plan to get the oil out ourselves.

It's not really enough to make a difference. The oil we drill there will be dropped into the global market. The effect on prices will be minimal and it really won't matter who drops it onto the market. The net effect on market prices should be the same. A tiny reduction in the price of crude.

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

What exact situation are you talking about? Oil companies drilling ANWR? While I'm sure there would be some sort of payment, it can't be too much otherwise it'd drive up the cost of the oil extracted (and we're kinda going for the reduction of that number).

This is what I'm talking about and it's pretty much standard that there would be compensation, I'm just wondering how much.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

This is what I'm talking about and it's pretty much standard that there would be compensation, I'm just wondering how much.

I don't think the amount really matters as long as the oil companies (or whoever does the drilling) can still make a profit off getting the oil out. If the cost puts their total cost over the profit threshold, it won't happen.

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I don't think the amount really matters as long as the oil companies (or whoever does the drilling) can still make a profit off getting the oil out. If the cost puts their total cost over the profit threshold, it won't happen.

I'm not saying we should demand more and it's probably some sort of standard amount, I'm just curious to know how much.

[Simius]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

I'm not saying we should demand more and it's probably some sort of standard amount, I'm just curious to know how much.

I don't know if these are standard rates... or inflated prices or discount prices... but from my Googling here is what I got:

Raymond J. Learsy: Royal Dutch Shell's 'New Heartland,' Alaskan Drilling Rights, The Abject Surrender of Our National Patrimony - Business on The Huffington Post

A company got the drilling rights to an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil + 77 trillion cubic feet of conventionally
recoverable gas... for $2.1 billion dollars. That is about 14 cents per barrel they are likely to recover. or at oil costs of $135 per barrel... 0.1% of the value of the oil they recover.

White House Ties Secure Yates' Drilling Rights to Sensitive N.M. Grasslands | Environmental Working Group

A company secured the rights to 1,600 acres of land that was going to become protected land. The company secured those rights for $3,200. The article didn't say how much oil is under there other than it being extremely little and previous drilling in the area hadn't yielded much.

[ballz2wallz]

If we had started drilling 10 yrs ago, perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess still debating it?

And what about that in combined efforts with drilling off the other coasts?

[Rouger2]

Yeah we will be drilling so the Chinese and Japanese can have our oil. Trade deficit gives them the bucks to buy our oil. Globilization, free trade, such wonderful things.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Nurse Betty

If we had started drilling 10 yrs ago, perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess still debating it?

And what about that in combined efforts with drilling off the other coasts?

10 years ago the continental shelf wasn't feasible. There were a few companies wanting to explore the area but not actually produce on the shelf in the mid/late 1990s. Now its a different story.

[ballz2wallz]

Here's something interesting:

At a time when U.S. crude oil production has fallen 40 percent in the past 25 years, 75 billion barrels of oil have been declared off-limits, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That would be enough to replace every barrel of non-North American imports (oil trade with Canada and Mexico is a net economic and national security plus) for 22 years.

That’s nearly a quarter-century of energy independence. The situation is absurd. To which John McCain is responding with a partial fix: Lift the federal ban on Outer Continental Shelf drilling, where a fifth of the off-limits stuff lies. …

The oil crisis handed McCain an unexpected and singularly effective campaign issue. A majority of Americans now favor drilling in the Arctic and offshore. Democrats stand in the way of increased production, just as they did 13 years ago when President Bill Clinton vetoed drilling in ANWR. Domestic oil production would be about 20 percent higher today if the Republican Congress had been allowed to prevail.

As expected and right on cue, Barack Obama reflexively attacked McCain. “His decision to completely change his position” to one that would please the oil industry is “the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades.” One can only marvel at Obama’s audacity in characterizing McCain’s proposal to change our policy as “old politics,” while the candidate of “change” adheres rigidly to the no-drilling status quo.

McCain is a lot of things, but the man who opposed ethanol in Iowa — as Obama shamelessly endorsed the most abysmally stupid of our energy policies — is no patsy of the energy producers. Americans know that increased production is needed to complement reduced consumption as the only way to get us out from oil shocks, high prices and national security blackmail.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Nurse Betty

Here's something interesting:

75B is conservative for the OCS and other deep water deposits within US territory.

THere's also a shit ton of shale oil. Estimates range to as high as 1 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in US shale deposits.

[Darlin]

Anyone who has an opinion about the oil industry should at least know the industry.

They should know the differance between propaganda and truth, emotion and fact.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

75B is conservative for the OCS and other deep water deposits within US territory.

THere's also a shit ton of shale oil. Estimates range to as high as 1 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in US shale deposits.

That's not nearly as cheap to extract though, right?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Darlin

Anyone who has an opinion about the oil industry should at least know the industry.

They should know the differance between propaganda and truth, emotion and fact.

What are you trying to suggest here?