Posted on 07/03/2008 5:36:18 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
Thank you for contacting me about drilling and oil exploration in the United States. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important matter.
The rising cost of gasoline is having a profound impact on the residents of Southern Indiana and all aspects of Americans' everyday lives. During these tough times, it is important we focus on solutions that go to the heart of the issue, and not get distracted by partisan rhetoric. There is no silver bullet to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, but I believe there are realistic solutions that will help us lower U.S. gasoline prices.
First, I believe we should conduct new drilling on off-shore federal lands. Currently, oil companies are not taking advantage of about 68 million acres of federal land that is open for drilling. If oil companies used the leased land already available to them, it would generate an estimated 4.8 million barrels of oil a day - six times what the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would produce at its peak.
Further, an estimated 80% of the oil believed to exist in the Outer Continental Shelf is located in areas that are already open for drilling. Yet, because it is expensive to drill off-shore, oil companies have not acted on many of their existing permits. Before we provide additional lease requests, we need to encourage the oil companies to drill on the untouched land that is already available to them.
To this end, I recently cosponsored H.R. 6251, the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act, which would bar oil and gas companies from receiving additional drilling permits unless they demonstrate they are diligently working on their current leases. Under H.R. 6251 the Interior Department would be tasked with enforcing this requirement. It is the public, not the oil and gas companies, who own these Federal lands and waters, and the leaseholders should only be allowed to keep them if they are serving the public by actually drilling. If the oil companies do not want to invest in off-shore drilling, Americans will continue to pay high prices at the pump, and oil companies will continue to reap record profits.
Another solution to our energy crisis is to crack down on speculators who are driving up the cost of gasoline for hard-working Americans. Speculators using unregulated financial markets can purchase a large number of energy contracts which artificially increases the demand and price of oil. Since 2000, the Administration and Congress have deregulated energy commodity trading and created new loopholes that have fostered excessive speculation in U.S. commodity futures markets. Due to these actions, financial analysts have indicated the price of crude oil is overpriced by at least $30 a barrel.
I recently introduced H.R. 6372, the Commodity Futures Restoration Act, which would reestablish oversight of the commodities markets to ensure that gas prices truly reflect the laws of supply and demand. My bill would simply restore the standards that were in place prior to 2000 by closing the harmful loopholes which have destabilized the U.S. commodity markets.
I believe these two proposals are realistic solutions that would provide immediate price relief for Hoosiers, and help restore the American economy as a whole. Current gas prices are a burdensome reminder of our dependence on an unstable energy supply. Our country must come together and work toward a future in which we have a stable, domestic supply of energy.
Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. Please feel free to call me at 202.225.5315 if you have any further questions or comments. If you would like to receive periodic email updates on my Congressional activities, please visit http://baronhill.house.gov .
What are the major problems with his analysis, and how may this be used to craft our subsequent letters to Congress on this subject?
I stopped reading right there. The oil companies are not drilling there due to LACK OF OIL. Having a lease does not mean there is oil. Does this congresscritter realize that dry holes cost just as much to drill?
It’s hard to know where to start. He’s wrong on so many different points. Unfortunately, the facts typically mean nothing to these guys. It’s all propaganda. Where we have known oil reserves that are already available for drilling, they are typically already being drilled or drilling is in the planning stages. To the extent that they are not, it is typically because they are viewed as high cost reserves.
And of course, there is really no incentive to drill at all if the Dems are just going to take away your profits anyway.
The Oil companies have a right to drill where ever they think the oil is, which is offshore.
This is what is known as FREE ENTERPRISE.
The Federal government should not even owning all of the land that it does, it should be sold off, not leased out.
6/30/2008 from the WSJ:
Obama’s Dry Hole
June 30, 2008; Page A12
“I want you to think about this,” Barack Obama said in Las Vegas last week. “The oil companies have already been given 68 million acres of federal land, both onshore and offshore, to drill. They’re allowed to drill it, and yet they haven’t touched it – 68 million acres that have the potential to nearly double America’s total oil production.”
Wow, how come the oil companies didn’t think of that?
Perhaps because the notion is obviously false – at least to anyone who knows how oil and gas exploration actually works. Predictably, however, Mr. Obama’s claim is also the mantra of Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Nick Rahall and others writing Congressional energy policy. As a public service, here’s a remedial education.
Democrats are in a vise this summer, pinned on one side by voter anger over $4 gas and on the other by their ideological opposition to carbon-based energy – so, as always, the political first resort is to blame Big Oil. The allegation is that oil companies are “stockpiling” leases on federal lands to drive up gas prices. At least liberals are finally acknowledging the significance of supply and demand.
To deflect the GOP effort to relax the offshore-drilling ban – and thus boost supply while demand will remain strong – Democrats also say that most of the current leases are “nonproducing.” The idea comes from a “special report” prepared by the Democratic staff of the House Resources Committee, chaired by Mr. Rahall. “If we extrapolate from today’s production rates on federal lands and waters,” the authors write, the oil companies could “nearly double total U.S. oil production” (their emphasis).
In other words, these whiz kids assume that every acre of every lease holds the same amount of oil and gas. Yet the existence of a lease does not guarantee that the geology holds recoverable resources. Brian Kennedy of the Institute for Energy Research quips that, using the same extrapolation, the 9.4 billion acres of the currently nonproducing moon should yield 654 million barrels of oil per day.
Nonetheless, the House still went through with a gesture called the “use it or lose it” bill, which passed on Thursday 223-195. It would be pointless even if it had a chance of becoming law. 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.
If anything, the Democrats ought to be dancing in the streets about “idle” leases. It means fewer rigs. The days of hit-or-miss wildcatting have been relegated to the past by new, more efficient technologies, such as seismic imaging, directional drilling (wells that are “steered” underground) and multilateral drilling (multiple underground offshoots from a single wellbore).
At the same time, finding new reservoirs has become far more complex. Except for a few very large fields discovered decades ago like Prudhoe Bay, most recent discoveries have been smaller, deeper and less concentrated. The U.S. needs a continuous supply of discoveries to replace declining wells.
Yet companies are not allowed to explore where the biggest prospects for oil and gas may exist – especially on the Outer Continental Shelf. Seven of the top 20 U.S. oil fields are now located in analogous deepwater areas (greater than 1,000 feet) in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2006, Chevron discovered what is likely to be the largest American oil find since Prudhoe, drilled in 7,000 feet of water and more than 20,000 feet under the sea floor. The Wilcox formation may have an upper end of 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil and should begin producing by 2014 – perhaps ushering in a new ultradeepwater frontier.
Likewise, in April, the U.S. Geological Survey revised its estimate for the Bakken Shale, underneath the badlands of North Dakota and Montana. The new assessment – as much as 4.3 billion barrels of oil – is a 25-fold increase over what the Survey believed in 1995. Such breakthroughs confirm that very large reserves exist, if only Congress would let business get at them.
All of which has Democrats sweating bullets. The leadership is desperate to avoid debating a Department of Interior spending bill, because they know Republicans will offer amendments lifting the drilling moratorium that may peel off some Democrats. Last week, Chairman David Obey shut down the Appropriations Committee rather than countenance more domestic energy production. Given Democratic energy illiteracy, this is a fight the GOP can win if it keeps up the pressure.
I'll give just one example:
Within the past three months, a coalition of environmental groups has filed four separate administrative legal challenges against BLM oil and gas lease sales in Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, and North Dakota.
The protests allege primarily that BLM failed to analyze adequately greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from oil and gas activities that may occur on the leases offered for sale, and that prior to offering parcels for lease, BLM must analyze these GHG emissions within the context of potential effects on climate change and global warming.trade associations, in countering these lease sale challenges. ____________________
Have received four or five replies thus far, and all of them have points that I will now use to craft my next two or three letters. This is a great help to me.
I posted hoping that others would begin using the wisdom of all of you guys to get after Congress in a big way.
Thanks to all of you!
BS, pure and unadulterated BS. ANY action that would signal an end to our country's willingness to pay any price, bear any burden to support freedom AND feed our energy appetite would put downward on oil prices.
If the President would simply stand up and say, “Enough!” and then outline a truly aggressive plan, based totally on the free market approach, things would start to happen. True, the energy producers know us well enough not to panic and start bargain-basement fire sales on the stuff, but as time went on and they saw new exploration, new refineries, new nuclear plants, etc. they would soon move to make it, once again, not financially attractive for us to go after our own sources.
Honestly, I see this as a matter of national security, not to mention pride in a country as great as America not being dependent on anyone for our lifeblood. I would rather pay $10.00 a gallon for gas and know that every drop of it I buy came from our own sources. If we would reserve oil for the jobs that only oil can do, and that does not include producing the tremendous amounts of electricity this nation uses every day, we would have enough to keep ourselves and our military supplied.
Face it, without our intervention the price is going to get there anyway, and that's if we're lucky. Unlucky will mean we can't get oil at any price and that's not so far-fetched a scenario.
It's obvious from this congress-critter's response that we are not even close to the kind of pain it will take to get us off our butts and moving to secure our nation's future through our own sources of energy.
Idle” lease claims based on lack of understanding: Cavaney
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2035201/posts
Access critical to addressing U.S. energy challenges: Cavaney
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2037301/posts
He recites the RAT talking points ... did he copy Nancy’s homework? The gist of what he’s saying is that the Peoples Committee for Central Planning is dictating to the oil companies exactly where to drill with no idea whatsoever as to how oil exploration works. The RATs need to ensure prices stay high so their other schemes work out. Sounds like his bill TO RESTRICT is right on the money to accomplish that.
Idle” lease claims based on lack of understanding: Cavaney
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2035201/posts
Access critical to addressing U.S. energy challenges: Cavaney
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2037301/posts
Can the president Fast Track oil drilling and refinery building using executive order? This is a national emergency.
I heard a panel discussion on ANWR and one of the big issues about drilling involves permits - even if they could drill, one of the representatives from Alaska said that current laws would require about 75 permits before they could begin drilling...All this congressman wants to do is place ANOTHER RESTRICTION on oil companies, not lift bans. I want to hear congress say today that they will LIFT BANS AND RESTRICTIONS in order to HELP drill for oil. But democrats don’t want drilling, so they will give this talking point “lots of land already leased, blah,blah,blah” when they KNOW oil companies can’t drill on that said land.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/top_10_reasons_to_blame_democr_1.html
We own 115 acres of land in indiana that is loaded with shale. Started to sell it 2 or 3 times in the past 20 years but held on to it. Ive heard they are getting back to the notion of oil from shale so Im hoping to make a few bucks in the coming years.
“I want you to think about this,” Barack Obama said in Las Vegas last week. “The oil companies have already been given 68 million acres of federal land, both onshore and offshore, to drill. They’re allowed to drill it, and yet they haven’t touched it – 68 million acres that have the potential to nearly double America’s total oil production.”
Democrat talking points is what you got. If you searched I'm sure you will find other Dem congress critters using the same words.
Who issues the Dem talking points?
Take any issue and all Dems use the same talking points.
But I have yet to hear an oil company exec make that argument. Only from the citizenry is that stated that I have been able to find.
Could someone lead me to a verification by an oil company?
Not an oil company, but will Red Cavaney, the President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute help?
Idle” lease claims based on lack of understanding: Cavaney
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2035201/posts
Access critical to addressing U.S. energy challenges: Cavaney
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2037301/posts
To all Indiana FReepers: You voted for this, therefore you must love him. Thanks for nothing.
Thanks. Just what I wanted to see.
Thank you for taking the time to write to the man knowing full well you were going to get talking points in reply rather than serious consideration of real solutions.
You know...I’ve heard this “68 million acre” argument for the past several weeks from every LibTard talking head that can find a microphone. I don’t buy it, but... Why aren’t the ‘big’ oil companies out crying foul to the high heavens over this patently stupid argument? Why aren’t the conservative voices raised as one in response?
I’ve seen aggressive response ONLY on a couple of outlets...a few minutes on Glenn Beck, some comments on Fox News. Nothing else that comes to mind.
Now, granted, I don’t have time to review all major media outlets, etc., but I certainly haven’t had any trouble bumping into the DhimmiRat stuffed shirts (Beckel, Pelousy, Reid and the rest) spouting their idiocy.
Where’s the rebuttal?
A little more to be found at:
Also a good place to check for updates, after first checking FR of course.
I have tried to analyze where the Democrats came up with the 68 million acre figure. While it does include some new leases that haven’t been drilled yet, oil companies don’t get a lease and drill it the next day. There are massive regulatory obstacles to cross first, including such things as archaeological surveys, wetlands permits, etc.
Further, the Democrats are counting offshore leases where oil has been discovered but isn’t being produced yet because the facilities are still being constructed, or pipelines are being built.
Some of the lands are just ram pasture and it makes no difference whether the oil companies have the rights or not. Nobody in their right mind would intentionally drill a dry hole on it.
The utter nonsense of their argument is displayed by the fact that the oil companies are aggressively acquiring more land from private landowners and state and federal government, often at a huge cost. Why would they do this if they had terrific acreage just teeming with oil, if only they would drill it?
The fact is that oil companies are drilling as fast as they can in the places that are the most promising that they can access.
The problem is that morons like Congressman Hill restrict that access with retarded logic and a spinning of the facts that borders on utter lies.
Thanks for the link. I appreciate it. However, this is making my point. We need a lot more exposure in a lot more media outlets.
“To this end, I recently cosponsored H.R. 6251, the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act, which would bar oil and gas companies from receiving additional drilling permits unless they demonstrate they are diligently working on their current leases.”
This is merely an increased control on where oil companies can drill. Believe me, the U.S. Department of the Interior is in thrall to the various environmental groups that occupy Washington, D.C. The bureaucrats, with help from their environmental friends, would have a license to tell oil companies that they’re not getting any more permits - effectively limiting offshore drilling. The only way to increase offshore drilling is to eliminate the vetoes that federal agencies and environmental groups have over energy development. That means less control by the federal government, not more.
Nobody ever questions the “facts” presented by Democrats and their environmentalist supporters. I’d be willing to bet that when these “facts” are studied, they prove to be erroneous.
I’d also bet that the “facts” cited by Obama came from talking points provided by an environmental group. Obama’s staff doesn’t do independent research on stuff like this, they just call their enviro friends for some talking points.
You might point out to the Congressman that we have tried similar federal schemes with regard to energy production. In the last thirty years we have built no nuclear powerplants, no new oil refineries, and, if I’m not mistaken, no new hydroelectric projects. And our choices for oil drilling have been decreasing.
The Congressman should consider whether his political alliance with environmental groups is worth crippling the economy, to the detriment of all the citizens he represents.
When we had few controls on the development of energy resources, we built the greatest industrial engine and economy in the World. What are we building now?
bump
Things like the BLM challenges have been happening for over thirty years. Back in 1978, the same type of coalition was raging about a hydroelectric project we were trying to get licensed. I believe the site is now some sort of wildlife refuge. And if they don’t get what they want on the administrative level, they’ll take it to federal court.
People need to realize that environmentalists are the new aristocracy, governing the U.S. as they see fit. We won’t have abundant energy in the country until these clowns are put in their place.
I wish Bush could and would Exec. Order around the obstructions we face, and I agree, it is a national emergency..
You might also point out to the Congressman that nothing he’s proposing will actually produce one more barrel of oil or one more gallon of gasoline.
DemoRat "talking points."
Whenever a Rat is asked to specifically indicate which of the purported 68 million acres which are NOT being drilled they mutter and obfuscate more than Boorack absent a prepared speech or teleprompter.
The "estimated 4.8 million barrels of oil a day" is a new one and would love to know how they came up with this figure--probably using the same computer projections the EnviroNuts employ in forecasting their doom and gloom.
First, the commodities exchanges are highly regulated.
Second, the estimate of +4.8 million bpd is by far the highest seen in recent history.
Aside from these wild shots, the proposals would probably do little good or little damage.
Couldn't agree more. I realize the enviro challenges are nothing new, having been in the O&G bidness over 30 years, but the Greenhouse Gas challenge is both new and a harbinger of the sad things to come.
http://democrats.senate.gov/journal/entry.cfm?id=299791
Democratic Caucus’s Senate Journal
June 26, 2008
Bush Republicans Have Struck Out on Energy
After blocking three Democratic efforts to address our energy crisis by investing in renewable energy just this month, Bush-McCain Republicans are now offering what they are calling a “new” energy bill that offers more of their same failed policies. The bill calls for opening up additional drilling off America’s shores, despite the 68 million acres already leased to oil companies that are not producing. It also calls for expanding oil shale production, which is still hampered by the lack of commercially-ready technologies and high costs. While these proposals would help Big Oil amass ever greater profits, they would do nothing to lower the cost of gasoline at the pump, worsen global warming and fail to reduce our dependence on oil. Fortunately, the Republican bill does borrow one idea to bring prices down from Democratic bills, which is to strengthening the Commodity Futures Trading Commission so it cracks down on excessive speculation in energy markets, but there is still more to do. The most important step that Bush-Republicans could take to help solve our nation’s energy crisis is to stop standing in the way, and join Democrats in investing in energy efficiency and clean alternatives to help consumers get some relief.
More at the link...........
Shouldn't they be more interested in ewe pasture??? (grin)
The Republican he beat, Mike Sodrel, owns his own trucking business. I’ll bet we’d get a different policy from him.
So making those "record profits" is not enough evidence for him? I thought we hated them for doing that... now they have to strive for MORE, so that we can hate the more, so THEN they can continue to try to secure our nation's future? How nice of you, Mr Democrat!
By your twisted logic, you and I and all other Americans love Bill Clinton, since we voted him into office... twice!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.