Why Isn't Big Oil Drilling More? Look At The Profits

Big oil can make big profits by drilling less, refining less and manipulating supply to keep demand artificially high. We need offshore drilling less than we need development of existing leases.

Oil Patch

will soon be

if not already

Killing Seniors &

Community Volunteers

on Fixed Incomes :

http://www.topix.net/world/canada/2008/08/oil...

Duh.

And having a do nothing democrat Congress who will not authorize more drilling can have an effect on prices as well.

Lance Winslow wrote:

Big oil can make big profits by drilling less, refining less and manipulating supply to keep demand artificially high. We need offshore drilling less than we need development of existing leases.

Ever thought about drilling yourself. Free Market economy and all.

MSO4 wrote:

And having a do nothing democrat Congress who will not authorize more drilling can have an effect on prices as well.

Really? They haven't done anything, and it's gone down substantially the past few weeks.

How did it go up 340% when Republicans had complete control of government from 2001-2006? Those were just random market forces then, right?

MSO4 wrote:

<quoted text>Ever thought about drilling yourself. Free Market economy and all.

You think oil is a free market? LOL.

Ned wrote:

<quoted text>
Really? They haven't done anything, and it's gone down substantially the past few weeks.
How did it go up 340% when Republicans had complete control of government from 2001-2006? Those were just random market forces then, right?

If you were paying attention you would know that gas only went down after Bushy authorized offshore drilling. So what exactly is Pelosis plan to lower gas prices?

MSO4 wrote:

<quoted text>If you were paying attention you would know that gas only went down after Bushy authorized offshore drilling. So what exactly is Pelosis plan to lower gas prices?

Right. Now all of a sudden the President controls the price of oil. When it goes up 8-fold (which it has during Bush's term), well that is out of his hands. Right?

Have I sufficiently grasped your illogical and cliched position?

Gas prices went down 17 cents (7%) during the Democrats' first month as the majority in Congress in 2007. They've only gone down 4% since Bush made his announcement.

Since we're playing meaningless "correlation is causation" games, one must necessarily conclude that Democrats are better at lowering gas prices than Bush.

Of course, gas was $1/gallon when Clinton-Gore were in office, and now it's 4 times that with two oilmen in charge. What an amazing coincidence.

Bush is not responsible for the cost of crude. Bush is not responsible for Congress turning off the lights and going home.
Bush has the power to recall Congress in a time of urgency.
Energy dependence upon countries that intend to sink our economy, sounds urgent to me.

RayOne wrote:

Bush is not responsible for the cost of crude.

Hahaha. Right on cue.

"The recent shift in U.S. policy regarding Iran, with an emphasis on diplomacy, helped deflate some of the geopolitical risk premium that had been built into oil prices."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/business/30...

Ned wrote:

Gas prices went down 17 cents (7%) during the Democrats' first month as the majority in Congress in 2007. They've only gone down 4% since Bush made his announcement.
Since we're playing meaningless "correlation is causation" games, one must necessarily conclude that Democrats are better at lowering gas prices than Bush.
Of course, gas was $1/gallon when Clinton-Gore were in office, and now it's 4 times that with two oilmen in charge. What an amazing coincidence.

Right. That was before Big Oil officially became evil. Once again, exactly what is Pelosi doing to lower gas prices?

MSO4 wrote:

<quoted text>Right. That was before Big Oil officially became evil. Once again, exactly what is Pelosi doing to lower gas prices?

I see, people loved oil companies before Bush became president?

Why don't you tell me why oil has increased 800% while Bush has been in office, yet it was at historically low prices while Clinton-Gore were in charge? You keep claiming Democrats raise oil prices, yet actual evidence completely contradicts this.

Let me guess - you don't think Bush's actions (like, oh, starting a war with a country with some of the largest reserves on the planet) has had any effect on prices, right? That saber-rattling at Iran and Venezuela have done nothing? That huge trade deficits (specifically with China and India), a cheap currency, and measures to incentivize high fuel consumption have had no effect on prices? No efforts to break high levels of market concentration in the downstream sector?

Yeah, it's all just magic movements that Bush has nothing to do with, but oh that Nancy Pelosi! Damn her and her liberal ways!

"With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices. Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case,$0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/r...

"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis...

Ned wrote:

<quoted text>
I see, people loved oil companies before Bush became president?
Why don't you tell me why oil has increased 800% while Bush has been in office, yet it was at historically low prices while Clinton-Gore were in charge? You keep claiming Democrats raise oil prices, yet actual evidence completely contradicts this.
Let me guess - you don't think Bush's actions (like, oh, starting a war with a country with some of the largest reserves on the planet) has had any effect on prices, right? That saber-rattling at Iran and Venezuela have done nothing? That huge trade deficits (specifically with China and India), a cheap currency, and measures to incentivize high fuel consumption have had no effect on prices? No efforts to break high levels of market concentration in the downstream sector?
Yeah, it's all just magic movements that Bush has nothing to do with, but oh that Nancy Pelosi! Damn her and her liberal ways!

Nice straw man slick. Pelosi has done nothing. But hey, blame it all on Bush and give Pelosi a pass like a true ideologue should.

Technically recoverable undiscovered oil resources in the lower 48 Outer Continental Shelf as of 1/1/03

Available for leasing and development - 40.92 billion barrels (69%)
Unavailable for leasing and development - 18.17 billion barrels (31%)

If there's supposedly such a demand by oil companies to actually drill the OCS (instead of just sitting on lease rights), why aren't they drilling the 69% of total resources which are already legally available? What have Bush and the Republicans done to get them to drill that oil?

You're falling for a big red herring. It helps the Republicans politically, damages the Democrats, shifts the frame away from the huge run-up in energy prices under Republican control of government, and oil companies (who donate 80% of their campaign contributions to Republicans) have the potential to get more valuable leases to sit on. That's why they're doing it. The last thing in the world those people want is lower oil prices.

MSO4 wrote:

<quoted text>Nice straw man slick. Pelosi has done nothing. But hey, blame it all on Bush and give Pelosi a pass like a true ideologue should.

Wow, what an awesome retort. I think the "say it a million times in slightly different ways" technique is so totally awesome and effective.

And since your short-term memory seems to be failing you, I offer you a refresher.

"Tues., Dec. 18, 2007
WASHINGTON - Congress by a wide margin approved the first increase in automobile fuel economy in 32 years Tuesday, and President Bush plans to quickly sign the legislation, accepting the mandates on the auto industry.

The energy bill, boosting mileage by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon, passed the House 314-100 and now goes to the White House, following the Senate’s approval last week."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22313314/

As someone who knows the history of energy in this country, you must be well aware that the steep drop off in oil prices after the second oil shock, lasting all the way until the year 2000 (20 years) was the result of substantially lower demand in the early 80s.

So you didn't answer my question. That long list of policy choices by Bush that I mentioned - do you assert that none of those things has had an upward effect on oil prices?

MSO4 wrote:

<quoted text>Nice straw man slick.

Please point out the "straw man". Do you even know what that means?