Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

cubanstockpicker (21.21)

Big oil IS DEFINITELY holding us hostage, if you listen to Rush, read on



June 13, 2008 – Comments (16)

The oil companies have over 9,300 permits on 68 million acres of land to drill established since 1999 yet have not drilled one.

House is pressing oil companies to drill or lose permits.

And on top of that, China is not drilling off the florida or cuban coast.
Rep. Mel Martinez stated

Oil companies just holding US hostage to finish opening up last areas.

The argument is are we really out of oil? or being taken for a very expensive ride?



16 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 13, 2008 at 10:39 AM, joeykid13 wrote:

We need to drill for God's sake...DRILL.  The Dems want to punish XOM for being successful, and blame them for making a tidy profit, yet they refuse to let us drill, they refuse nuclear, they are just insane and impossible.  They live in fantasyland.  Nobody is saying you're gonna have Oil rigs off the coast of Fort Lauderdale...we're talking way out on the Atlantic Ridge and Anwar.  We have more shale bearing oil in the Rocky Mountains than the entire Middle East combined.  The powers that be really don't want to solve the problem...because ALL of the legislators on both sides live in their cushy selfish and comfortable fantasyland.

Report this comment
#2) On June 13, 2008 at 10:57 AM, cubanstockpicker (21.21) wrote:

Joeykid13, STOP READING THE REPUB TALK HEAD POINTS. AND read next time next time, they already have 68 million in acres available for drilling since 1999. They havent drilled. THE ROAD IS CLEARED TO DRILL SINCE 99.


"We need to drill for God's sake...DRILL."

9300 permits open to drill, why arent the oil companies drilling?

They are permits to drill, and they are not drilling. 

The powers that be are trying to obligate the oil companies(house rep emmanuel) sitting on permits.

Report this comment
#3) On June 17, 2008 at 3:36 PM, FourthAxis (< 20) wrote:

So...68 million acres.  And how much oil?  Oh, U.S. discovery peaked in the 60s and production peaked in the 70s?

(Excluding the government hold ups) The fields simply aren't profitable...otherwise the oil companies would pump what they could while the prices are high...and hold back what they have while prices are low.  Econ 101. 

I'll be watching your USO call though. :)

Report this comment
#4) On June 23, 2008 at 5:25 PM, cubanstockpicker (21.21) wrote:

At 135 dollars a barrel oil isnt profitable? lol, funny Fourth, very funny.

"and hold back what they have while prices are low.  Econ 101."

Yeah, thats already happened. History 101.

Report this comment
#5) On June 24, 2008 at 3:02 AM, awallejr (56.95) wrote:

Larry Kudlow's show tonight (6/23) had the CEO of Anadarko as a guest and confronted him with this issue.  The CEO's response was pretty knowledgeable and made sense.  You need to "block" the leases or it makes little sense to drill off individual ones.  Also the permit process delays things tremendously.

There is no conspiracy here.  Obviously if the companies can profit off drilling they will do it.  If anything it is Congress refusing to employ a needed energy policy of encouraging drilling as a short term remedy to encourage alternate fuels as a long term remedy.  We have a secretary of Energy who pretty much shrugs his shoulders.  You have a Congress that wants to isolate the Country's assets because polar bears eating defensless baby walrus are more important.

The remedies exist NOW.  Allow the offshore drilling, build the conversion of coal and nat gas to fuel plants.  Encourage the wind and solar companies.  Stop the silly Ethanol program. Encourage electric cars.  It is all there to be had.  It just takes a Congress and President gutsy enough to push this stuff.  Do it, create jobs HERE.  Stop the flow of American dollars to the middle east.

This is not rocket science anymore.  It is a matter of focusing national policy.

Report this comment
#6) On June 24, 2008 at 8:42 AM, cubanstockpicker (21.21) wrote:

"Also the permit process delays things tremendously"

They already have the permits since 1999. What are they using? Hand powered drills?

You need to "block" the leases or it makes little sense to drill off individual one. you believe everything kudlow and company and thier guests say?, only herb greenberg has been honest.

Kudlows motto even during last year and this one, "the economy is strong, yaddah yaddah yaddah. "


Report this comment
#7) On June 24, 2008 at 2:46 PM, awallejr (56.95) wrote:

Don't confuse "leases" with "permits", they are two different things.  Leases give you the grant to a particular block of land.  Permits allow you to do the actual work, and getting that approval is otentimes difficult especially when environmentalists start filing lawsuits.

And no I wasn't talking about Kudlow, but his CEO of Anadarko guest, who did an excellent job explaining the process.  Believe me if these guys could be making money off the leases they would be, especially at $135+ per barrel.

Report this comment
#8) On June 24, 2008 at 6:55 PM, cubanstockpicker (21.21) wrote:

Next time read the House press release, but ill get you the footnotes. 

"Offshore, big oil is producing on only about 20 percent of the acres they hold, while onshore, companies are producing on less than 30 percent of the acres they hold. These unused areas could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day, nearly double current domestic oil production."

According to a special report released by the House Committee on Natural Resources earlier this month, the amount of drilling permits issued between 1999 and 2007 increased by 361 percent. But that doesn't mean actual drilling has increased. The committee noted that there are almost 10,000 unused drilling permits already issued by the Bureau of Land Management.


Here is the pdf link  

Report this comment
#9) On June 25, 2008 at 2:30 AM, awallejr (56.95) wrote:

Yeah but that report really is manipulative of statistics at best.  While drilling alone is not the answer to our energy needs, it is necessary short term until the alternative technologies develop further. Where do they even support the assertion that the basically massive bulk of the oil and gas are covered by the existing permitted leases?  By clear implication the report is claiming that there is basically no drillable oil and gas available in the bulk of the drillable space excluded.  Sorry, I don't buy that.  And the drillers certainly don't buy it. And if it was the case just come out and say it.  Just say that there is little oil and gas reserves on the bulk of the excluded lands.  Guess what, they won't.

Report this comment
#10) On June 25, 2008 at 10:26 AM, cubanstockpicker (21.21) wrote:

How many times can you bounce around on a point?

"getting that approval is ofentimes difficult especially when environmentalists start filing lawsuits."

"Don't confuse "leases" with "permits""

The report is made by the Bureau of Land Management

"By clear implication the report is claiming that there is basically no drillable oil and gas available in the bulk of the drillable space excluded." The report never implies anythign excpet drill what you to first before you start wanting more. In my native language, its called "eating with the eyes". You serve a huge monstruous plate before taking a first bite. 

SIMPLE ENOUGH, DRILL WHAT YOU GOT, THEN WE WILL GIVE YOU SOME MORE. BUT THATS 9 YEARS WITHOUT DRILLING ON PERMITS. Either it takes 9 years to drill a hole underground or to build a pumper on top of a field to prove your case.

Get to what you got first then we give you more.



Report this comment
#11) On June 25, 2008 at 7:56 PM, awallejr (56.95) wrote:

Guess we will always be on opposite ends.  I am not bouncing around. And I will state it another way.  Leases give you the land to drill.  Permits give you the right to drill.  Permits do not mean instant drilling.  Environmental impact statements must be obtained, which often causes considerable delays in and of themelves. Having the leases and permits also doesn't mean it is worth starting to drill.  Who the hell is going to spend $50 per barrel to produce a $10 product.  It is only lately that the cost of oil is making many options viable (like sand tar).

Instead of trying to spoon feed leases, here's a better solution, make most of it available and let the bidding begin.  But you know damn well the environmentalists don't want that. 

Report this comment
#12) On June 25, 2008 at 9:55 PM, cubanstockpicker (21.21) wrote:

awall, 1999. Not one drill in the ground? If thge oil companies were trying to drill and we had envionmentalists dressed as caribou I would personally have open hunting season with my rifle on them (its rabbit season, no its duck season). But to follow your argument on this would mean that even if offshore drilling were open today it would take another ten years and still nothing done?

Report this comment
#13) On June 26, 2008 at 12:52 AM, awallejr (56.95) wrote:

Would hope not, but we will probably never know because Congress and the environmentalists will never allow it until the populace gets angry enough and starts booting them out.

Report this comment
#14) On June 26, 2008 at 1:50 AM, HighHopesInSD (< 20) wrote:


While I am not directly defending oil companies, and will not argue whether or not they have exploited the market, their connections to this presidency, nor possibly burried technology that could have reduced our dependency on oil, (ex. battery technology bought by Chevron), there is some data that I think you are overlooking.  Look at the following chart.

The chart shows that oil was around $20 a barrel as late as 1999 and didn't cross $60 a barrel until 2004.  There are a lot of areas that are not commercially feasible at $20 a barrel.  In fact, the Canadian Oilsands that are producing so much oil right not are uneconomical below I believe $60 a barrel.  Therefore, when you say that places haven't been drilled since 1999, there could be a good economic reason for it.  Drilling is expensive.  Many wells in the U.S. were capped for years because they were not economical to operate with oil at $20 a barrel.  Also, if the oil is in a new area, (and not just areas adjacent to existing major fields), then the infrastructure to develop the oil, (think pipelines to existing refineries or ports), may not be in place and they are expensive and time-consuming to build.  No profit-seeking exec, (or at least very few of them), will plan on bringing a new field into production and build a pipeline to get that oil to market if its profitability is questionable.  (The oilsands production was uneconomical for years until the current price of oil caused a boom in production and large profits over the past couple of years.)  I know that there are currently some pipeline projects that are expected in another year or two to be connecting to fields currently being drilled, so some new areas are currently being brought to market.  

Again, I'm not saying that many of the oil companies may not have intentionally withheld supply from the market to drive up the price, (similar to Enron cornering the supply of natural gas into the California market and radically driving up our natural gas costs a few years ago), but some of the areas could have legitamatly not have been drilled before recently as they may not have been profitable to develop until recently.  Also, a lot of our drill rigs have been moved to more profitable areas overseas, (Venezuela's Orinoco Basin, for instance, until Chavez started screwing the oil companies), so there could be limited availability of drill rigs currently to drill exploratory wells in these areas.

On the other hand, if a year or two from now you can still make the same true statement that all these areas haven't had a single pilot well being drilled on them, then I think that your statement would be more true and the arguement that the oil companies might be intentially jacking up oil prices will have more merit.  This is because most of these areas can no longer be said to be unprofitable with oil over $100 a barrel as could be argued with oil at $20 a barrel or even $60 a barrel.  Also, with oil at $60 a barrel the oil execs could argue that it is a recent phenominon and that oil might drop back to $20 a barrel, so they are reluctant to invest.  I don't think anyone believes that oil will go below $60 a barrel again for the forseeable future, so the "oil might drop in price" arguement has lost a lot of its validity.

Just my two cents.


Report this comment
#15) On June 26, 2008 at 5:26 PM, cubanstockpicker (21.21) wrote:

I am all for energy production and drilling. But I am also all for an escape plan that works.

If I were congress I would offer offshore drilling only after they have developed lets say 40% of capacity off existing PERMITS.

Then I would add in to stay away from ethanol unless from sugar and all subsidies to go to ELECTRIC CARS using a biofuel engine to charge up batteries.

The oil companies could then use their oil for other purposes, like bathing in it, because after ten years of hybrid biofuel/electric car we wont even need to go to a gas station. 


Report this comment
#16) On June 26, 2008 at 5:28 PM, cubanstockpicker (21.21) wrote:

Btw, fourth, awall and highhopes, Im in agreement we need to drill, and I respectfully accept your opinions, but I hate when we as a country drop our pants at BIG OIL, take it up our bung holes and yell DEEPER.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners