Jophiel wrote:
As the map I linked shows, there's millions of acres of federal land already leased to energy companies which are non-producing. They are "zoned". Hence the whole concept of leasing them to oil & gas comapnies. Most of that land isn't even explored.
Yeah. Been hearing this broken record recently as well. The response is pretty simple and obvious though. Yes. The federal government opens up land for lease. However, the oil companies have to pay for those leases, and they only get a set time to explore and hope that there's oil there. Most of the time, there isn't.
More significantly for your nifty map, they aren't going to be exploring in every single location they've leased at the same time. The leases are for set periods of time (typically 5 years IIRC). That means that they've got 5 years to check out that plot of land. Of course they're not going to be actively exploring on every single one 100% of the time. They're going to drill some exploratory holes in one plot, then another, then another. The ones that don't look promising get left alone for the remainder of the 5 years.
The sort of ratio's on that map are not unusual at all for the oil industry. They have to drill a significant number of holes in the ground before they find one that's got oil at the bottom. You're essentially arguing "why don't the oil companies only lease land for exploring that will produce oil?". Um...
Quote:
You can't make a credible argument for "Oh, only ANWR can save us now!" while there's literally tens of millions of acres of land that do allow drilling and which haven't even been looked at by the companies which were confident in their potential to sign into leases for them.
I have never said "only ANWR can save us". I have stated, repeatedly, that there's not much rational reason *not* to drill in ANWR. We have an area that has been repeatedly surveyed and shown to hold significant reserves of oil. The likelihood of production is much much higher there then in those other aresas on the map (as your own map shows). It's a "sure thing".
Why insist on exploring everywhere *except* the one area we absolutely know has sufficient quantities of oil to be worth drilling? Isn't that kind of silly?
Quote:
Hell, if the energy companies are so unhappy or unable to exploit the land they have claim to, have the government take it all back and set it as untouchable. How about for every acre of ANWR opened for drilling, roads, infrastructure or anything else, we reclaim 1500 contiguous acres of nonproducing land elsewhere?
They'd go for that deal in an instant Joph. Because the only reason they *aren't* actively drilling in those areas is because they paid money for the leases, did some exploring, and determined that the oil quantities present weren't sufficient to justify drilling.
They're losing money on those lands Joph! Don't you think they'd drill for oil if there was enough to make putting the holes in the ground worth it? Of course they would! What possible other reason do you think a for-profit company would not be drilling oil in those areas?
The obvious answer is well... obvious.
Quote:
Obviously the energy companies don't have use for it despite their paying leases on it.
Yes! What part of that don't you get? They're required to lease for a period of time. But they can't explore until they pay for the right to do so. It's hit or miss. They're hoping that there's sufficient oil under those plots to develop and use. Most of the time, there isn't...
Quote:
Hell, I'd be down for that (providing we could ensure that the land being reclaimed was relatively pristine itself). Someone get Congress on the phone for me.
Again. They'd completely take you up on that. Every acre of land that they've leased and explored and determined doesn't have sufficient oil worth drilling set aside as wildlife preserves in exchange for immediate and full exploration and drilling in ANWR? The oil companies would take that deal in an instant Joph. Cause see. They already know that those lands don't have oil on them. When the leases expire, they're not going to renew them anyway. Take that land and do whatever you want with it. They don't have any need for it.
Quote:
Anyway, it's neither here nor there. Castigate the Democrats all you want over ANWR if it makes you happy. The fact will still remain that the amount of oil there isn't significant in regards to lowering oil prices, gas prices or whatever else. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or lying. Which leads me to wonder why Bush, McCain, et al are saying it.
That's like saying that no individuals vote really matters Joph. Each and every barrel of oil is "significant" in that it adds up to the whole we're producing. If we block every single multi-billion barrel reserve because on it's own, it wont be enough to change the equation much, then we're being pretty darn stupid.
I have never said this is only about ANWR. We need to increase domestic production of oil. Period. ANWR is one of the places we need to start actively exploring and drilling, but is by no means the only location. That particular argument is pure strawman from the Left...
There isn't enough oil in these areas to make much of an impact.