SUBJECT: say LD.. answer me this oil based question..
according to the Democrat controlled Congress and their lemmings the current oil boogieman is speculators.. driving the price of oil up from a theoretical supply-demand equilibrium price for oil of $70~ppb to the $140~ speculative controlled price we see today..
- 7/3/2008 6:17:00 PM
Dollar says Ohhh it can be driven down
but there's got to be fundamental reasons for it to become a bear market. The physical market still rules the roost.
I'm not sure that just allowing drilling by itself would impact the market. The current problem is there's no excess capacity. And until an excess capacity is developed, we will continue to see the volatility in the market.
But I do think we could start seeing more oil on the market sooner than the 5 to 7 year estimates we're hearing now. If the permit process were expedited and if the seismic work showed some very promising areas, that would bring optimism back. ( Which BTW, no seismic work has been done off the east or west coasts in 25 years while technology has improved greatly ).
All that said, there still remains a drilling rig shortage. We need to be building offshore drilling rigs like we built Victory Ships in WW II . Currently, it takes 3 to 4 years to build a drill ship or semi submersible that could operate in deep water. That would be the primary impediment for domestic drilling creating a bear market.
Its more likely that demand destruction in China and the Asian countries or some miraculous political changes in Iran, Iraq, Russia , Nigeria will do the trick first, if it ever happens.
What allowing domestic drilling would do , from a market standpoint, is create hope and optimism in the financial markets other than oil. There needs to be a light at the end of the tunnel. And some good seismic reports could bring that.
But remember, this is all the opinion of a rank amateur, nobodys willing to pay me for my opinion :) .
- 7/3/2008 6:31:00 PM
Dollar says Here's a pro ( if I'm allowed to double post )
I think the former CEO of Shell, John Hofmeister, covers this topic, among others, here..........
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=782805596&play=1
This is an interesting interview.
- 7/3/2008 7:07:00 PM
Bro #13310 says I liked it.. mr corporate gunslinger turns into non-profit prophet..
although I was about ready to tell the squawk box to have a tall glass of shut the hell up so the man could speak..
I'd be willing to bet opening our protected areas up for exploration alone would drop the price of oil..
- 7/3/2008 8:28:00 PM
Dollar says I'm pretty sure
that Hofmeister agrees with you, if that was the video clip of the interview I'm thinkin of. He was on for two hours the other day, so it could've been another segment.
And your right, the Squawk Box should've let the man talk.
In the summer of 1982, the Dow was at 250 after several years of high and rising oil prices. The price of oil dropped over the next year from the $38 level down to about $31 , or so. And that sent the Dow to 1200 by July of 1983. That was a tremendous rise in value. That happened not because the price of oil dropped significantly, it happened just because oil quit rising, as many were predicting oil to go to $100 per bbl.
It remained in the low 30's till January of 1986, when in one day it dropped from 31 to 8 . And it did that on an announcement by the Saudis that they would no longer take the role of swing producer. So there is precedent for it to drop on good news.
From 1981 to 1986, OPEC lost its discipline. The member countries were all cheating on their quotas and the Sauds were adjusting their production to keep the price up. There eventually was a glut of oil on the market and the Sauds tired of propping it up, announced they were opening up the pumps, and thats when oil made that record fall.
- 7/3/2008 11:45:00 PM
PJzaBruin #10908 says What of the thousands of APD (Approved Permits to Drill) in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado?
Apparently, there aren't enough rigs to drill in all the areas where the oil companies have already applied for -- AND RECEIVED -- drilling permits in the USA. Areas where they've done enough seismic work to expect positive results from drilling.
Mind you, with the Euro having increased in value against the dollar by a factor of 1.7 during Curious' tenure in office, we can only expect limited relief until a Democrat cleans up the economic mess that this Commode In Chief will leave behind.
- 7/4/2008 7:41:00 AM
Raggpicker (71.11.162.168) says There you go again!
Saying that some Shell Oil exec knows more about petrol then Miss Nancy and her fellow Dem Congress!
I for one choose to put my trust in the Democrat controlled Congress and their promise to get a hand on gas prices once and for all.
Everyone knows this problem was caused by rich Republican Nancy Boys in the Whitehouse; what we need in there is an Old Timey Negro telling us what we want to hear.
- 7/4/2008 7:41:00 AM
jon_the_fisherman (71.203.218.72) says yeah PJ, them dems are good at cleanup
just ask Bill about cleanup, I bet he wished he would have cleaned that dress
- 7/4/2008 7:46:00 AM
Raggpicker (71.11.162.168) says The only thing a Democrat can "Clean Up"
Is their semen off the ass-cheeks of the 13 year old page they have been buggering in their office instead of doing the work we elected them for.
- 7/4/2008 7:57:00 AM
Dollar says PJ , they are drilling there
My brother worked in Wyoming over the past three years putting drilling equipment together. There's a lot of rigs working up there and in South Dakota, have you not heard of the Bakken formation ?
Before you Democrats start attempting to deflect blame, then maybe you need to find out what's actually going on in those areas.
I can tell ya right now, if there were any major fields in those areas, you would have heard about it. My Uncle was working as a roughneck in Wyoming in the late 1940's.
This is maybe the dumbest post you've made on this board. You and your Democratic brothers need to just get out of the way, cause you can't lead.
Not to mention, that oil shale is mostly whats found in the Rocky Mountains, and a Democratic congress voted last year to not allow the mining and production of that oil shale. Just as Grid about that issue .
You and Maxine Waters and your hero Obama, are gonna have us ridin bicycles - and it won't be by choice.
- 7/4/2008 8:08:00 AM
jon_the_fisherman (71.203.218.72) says to them, it is just oil
forget that oil shales are different than sweet crude, and that the extraction and refining is different.
- 7/4/2008 8:39:00 AM
Eric-Maine (76.179.107.142) says 1.7.................
is that the new talking point?
The dems would probably "fix" the dollar. Higher taxes a 10% interest rate and 6.5% unemployment will cause the money supply to shrink as people and business hunker down for economic survival. American goods will become more expensive overseas as off shore goods become cheap and there will be new calls for protectionism and NAFTA will be revisited and plant closings in Mexico spurr on a greater influx of illegal immigration. Meanwhile more and more women will prostitute themselves for gasoline and cheap lawn chairs will replace existing furniture as the later is burned to heat the home.
- 7/4/2008 8:41:00 AM
Bro #13310 says PJz.. the Obama energy plan
is summed up at his website to say we need to legislate lifestyle changes as the primary method for reducing consumer demand and invest in 2% alternatives..
under an Obama do nothing plan the working poor and lower middle class will be the most severely affected.. do you think LD is kidding with his metaphoric bicycle for these people?
Obama states NO to expanding oil exploration.. Obama states NO to expanding nuclear energy.. do you honestly consider this is good judgement or sound policy.. you know, change you can believe in..
tell us PJz.. what is the position you rate Energy on the importance scale for deciding our next president? first.. second.. behind national health care.. before Iraq..
and what is the difference between McCain and Obama on the issue of Energy..
and where do your own personal beliefs align on the issue of Energy.. closer with McCain or Obama..
and Alex.. please don't phrase your answer in the form of a question..
- 7/4/2008 10:40:00 AM
Dollar says I'm not kidding about the bicycles
There will have to be a bridge between the bulk of our transportation fuel coming from oil and coming from alternatives.
We must keep our oil production increasing, which means replacing depletion and providing for new growth , until alternatives become practical. And the two promising alternatives at the present time, electric and hydrogen, will be dependent upon having the electricity, which must come from nuclear.
Without increasing our oil supplies and doing everything we can to keep the cost down, there will be a gap between oil and the age of alternatives, which won't be avaiable fast enough.
That leaves us riding bicycles till the nukes get built, maybe not because there's not any oil but because the price of oil will be at an extreme level.
Obama and the Dems are betting on the come. They're betting that alternatives will be in place soon enough and I don't like their odds. I think they totally ignore depletion of current oil fields and how fast depletion might occur.
We best be drilling our asses off , everywhere we possibly can.
- 7/4/2008 11:19:00 AM
Dollar says If ya heard too much Squawk, here's more Hofmeister
On the Chukchi Sea ........
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=782842024
On domestic production with Jeff Kupfer of the DOE
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=782810686
Parting shots ..........
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=782871692
And one from Mar 20
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=690169657&play=1
- 7/4/2008 5:00:00 PM
PJzaBruin #10908 says This was published back in 2004... and many more permits were issued in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007...
"Furthermore, BLM data show a growing number of “surplus” drilling permits. That is, the
number of permits approved by the agency exceeds the number of wells actually started. This has
occurred in every year since 1994.
The surplus inventory of drilling permits draws into serious question the need to speed up
processing of permits and leasing more public land in proposed wilderness areas."
"Over the past decade, BLM has approved in excess of 25,000 drilling permits and industry has
drilled about 19,000 new wells on public lands managed by BLM, resulting in a surplus of more
than 6000 drilling permits (Figure 1). The lack of drilling rigs in the Rocky Mountain region is a
likely reason for the surplus of drilling permits. Based on the pace of drilling over the last few
years, and if no additional permits are issued, it will take several years to finish drilling the surplus
permits already approved. "
http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/Drilling-in-the-Rocky-Mountains-Not-so-Fast-An-Assessment-of-Surplus-Drilling-Permits-Leases-on-Federal-Public-Lands.pdf
"In 2005, a record high of 4,373 drilling permits were approved in Colorado. That same year, the director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) reported that COGCC staff were only able to monitor well sites approximately once every 3 years.[1] In 2006, the record for the number of approved drilling permits set in 2005 was surpassed by 35%."
http://www.earthworksaction.org/COtoxics.cfm
And then there are the proven reserves in the NPR-A (National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska) that industry has barely tapped.
The oil industry has permission to drill on millions of acres of proven productive lands that they are not touching. Why on earth would we open leases in areas that have already led to disaster, like those off the coast of California, while these productive lands lay untouched?
No, Dollar isn't kidding about the bicycles. He really IS that much taken with his own hyperbole.
- 7/4/2008 5:12:00 PM
Bro #13310 says well okay PJz.. don't answer any questions..
just sling it at LD..
that's a lot easier than admitting your thoughts on Energy align closer to McCain than Obama..
I'll take your non-answer as a vote of PRESENT.
bwaaaaaa
- 7/4/2008 5:12:00 PM
Dollar says Hey , you argumentative ..............
If there was something there, they would be drilling it.
Thats the bottom line, PJ ................. its not there in sufficient quantities, that's why they want to drill offshore.
Tell me again how smart you are PJ , cause it would take a dumbass to not understand why they want new areas to explore. This is not rocket science, even for some F'd up California wacko.
Its stupid to argue this. The economics are such that any possible major play is being exploited, as quickly as possible.
And if Obama says no drilling, and he says no nukes , then you better buy stock in Schwinn, cause their sales will go through the roof.
And its not the major US oils that would be interested in those fields your concerned with. Here's the kind of oil man that would, and he explains why ..........
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=782836079&play=1
- 7/4/2008 5:21:00 PM
PJzaBruin #10908 says Funny, Picky, how it's only Democrats who HAVE to answer questions around here...
but here you go.
I do not favor any offshore drilling. Not off California, not off Florida. Not when there are productive lands onshore waiting for drilling rigs. Not when land specifically set aside for this purpose -- the NPR-A -- lies there with millions of untapped barrels of crude.
I DO favor building more nuclear power plants. The locations DO need to be carefully selected, and as each one is built, on-sited disposal for spent fuel must also be developed.
Dollar, I understand that the big oil companies believe -- and with good reason -- that the offshore oilfields will give them a better return on the money they spend developing them. It is not the business of the United States of America to mortgage our environment to give them the best return on the money they spend. At over $100 per barrel, oil companies can make a pretty solid return on all of the on-shore fields. They want more, and who can blame them?
Tough shizt.
- 7/4/2008 5:42:00 PM
Dollar says No PJ .........
your just spouting off about something you know nothing about. And you don't realize what you don't know.
The onshore fields are producing nothing. Good grief. Wells that make 20 to 100 bpd mean absolutly nothing. It would take thousands of wells to produce what one offshore well could produce. And other than the oil shale , which is a completely different subject, they won't find any big wells in Wyoming, Colorado, or anyplace else in the lower 48.
You just don't understand the business of oil. And you won't admit it.
The only domestic inland oil play that is making a lot of oil is the Bakken, and its an unusual producing formation that they've just figured out how to drill. And those wells are averaging 2,000 bpd and its predicted they will play out fast.
Offshore, they can bring in wells like the Jack #2 , that was tested at 6,000 bpd.
They are looking for the giant elephant fields, like Prudhoe Bay, Cantarell, and the North Sea. And what they've found in deep water off the coast of Brazil.
And its not necessarily economical to produce, drilling and production costs are high, very high. It would take $100 oil to make them feasible. The profit would be made on volume.
- 7/5/2008 12:03:00 PM
MrDo says (snicker)
.
- 7/5/2008 1:03:00 PM
Fshfndr says What else did you expect
from PJ he spouts out about everything he is a Dem and Knows nothing. His state is so liberal they are going broke giving everything away so nobody will be working in Calfruit. Most will be on the Gov tit or moving because of the taxes to support all the Freeloaders
- 7/5/2008 7:44:00 PM
Bro #13310 says hey thanks for the answers PJz..
although I cannot understand why it pains you to say your views align closer to McCain than Obama on the issue of Energy..
if the positions were reversed I'd have no problem saying the same thing with Obama..
and generally speaking I align closer across the board with your views than either McCain or Obama..
- 7/5/2008 8:23:00 PM
Dollar says Doncha love how
allowing drilling offshore , immediately becomes " mortgaging our environment "
That's taking a huge step , a very unrealistic stretch.
But what else is new huh ? As long as he's gettin his electricity from generating plants fouling the air in other states, like Oklahoma ........... he doesn't care.
Typical.
- 7/5/2008 9:24:00 PM
Bro #13310 says I've know PJz a long time..
when he says something like "mortgaging our environment" he usually means it metaphorically, not literally..
same as when you say everybody riding a bicycle..
although PJz and the Democrats in Congress are dead wrong and mostly ignorant about the drilling issue.. I predict at least three spins left for both parties..
- 7/5/2008 11:08:00 PM
PJzaBruin #10908 says Dollar, talk to us about Santa Barbara, California circa 1969
yes, mortgaging our environment. No stretch, and nothing unrealistic... except the rhetoric from the folks who see drilling as the only solution to the problem we face.
And Picky -- my view on nuclear power does indeed align more closely with McCain. My views on conservation and drilling are much closer to Obama's. We aren't ready to turn off all our air conditioners and computers, so we need electricity. At the same time, California and Florida aren't willing to gamble their huge tourism industries against the chances of another 3 million gallon spill washing up on their beaches.
- 7/6/2008 2:06:00 AM
jon_the_fisherman (71.203.218.72) says Gonna be hard to pull.....
.....in those tourism dollars if fuel is over four dollars a gallon for an extended time. People are going to stay home for vacations.
- 7/6/2008 7:56:00 AM
Dollar says I guess PJ also wants to talk about the sinking of the Titanic
I'm sure there was environmental damage done then, had to be some diesel leaked. Or maybe we could go back to the Revolutionary War.
PJ , if 1969 is all you can bring up, then you have no leg to stand on ............ that was a long time ago bud.
Katrina and Rita came through the largest concentration of offshore wells in the world, and there were no major spills. Wells don't blow out anymore. Ya know , PJ, technology has improved over 1969 ......... ya know, we have computers now ????
And you better look twice at Florida, opinion there has changed fast and they may be asking Congress to allow drilling. They smart enough to know their tourism industry will go down the tubes if no one can afford to visit, and people can't get there on bicycles.
Course, in California, they not smart enough to realize that, bunch of fricken idiots like Brad.
And you better get over your emotional spite for the oil business, cause your gonna need oil, your gonna need it far more than your boy Obama thinks you need it.
California will come around, just like Florida. And the environmental wackos will be told to sit down and shut up.
- 7/6/2008 9:06:00 AM
Bro #13310 says settle down PJz and look at the facts..
in Florida we operate a 75 billion dollar tourism industry.. recent figures indicate a 17 billion decline due to rising Energy prices..
now I have no doubt, even though they cannot see oil on any of their beaches, the people of Santa Barbara still have elevated concerns over oil drilling..
but that doesn't change the fact everything equal, high Energy prices will be the killer for both our tourism industries.. not any potential risk of oil on our beaches.. and just like Chris Moneymaker says about gambling with our tourism industry, it ain't actually gambling when you already know his cards..
like LD said, even you Californians will peer through the smog and come around sooner or later..
- 7/6/2008 12:03:00 PM
Dollar says The biggest irony, and where PJ gets off base repeating the Dems talking points
Is that this Democratic Congress voted to sue OPEC for holding oil off the market and fixing oil prices.
And PJ fails to see that his state is doing the same thing. They are holding oil off the market by not allowing the development of known oil reserves.
Its typical American arrogance to point the finger at OPEC and pressure the Saudis to increase production, all the while saving our own reserves. I don't think the rest of the world gives a rats ass about California's unfounded and emotion base environmental fears.
They will not get by with this hypocrisy.
Repeating the Democratic party talking points can make a person look pretty foolish.
- 7/6/2008 6:16:00 PM
PJzaBruin #10908 says Unfounded? 300 Million Gallons of crude on California beaches is UNFOUNDED?
OK, it would be easy to get worked up about such an asinine statement... but all I have to do is consider the source. Dollar, it's clear where your loyalties lie. You've been bought and paid for, and you deliver the company line as well as anyone I've ever seen.
Pardon me for not accepting the company line. Repeating it in the face of all the evidence can make a person look very foolish.
- 7/6/2008 6:40:00 PM
PJzaBruin #10908 says Oops! CRAP!! 3 Million Gallons
not 300 Million.
What was I thinking?
- 7/7/2008 8:40:00 AM
Harumph #11038 says I've seen your beaches Peaches and Oil aint the problem
There is enough sewage in those waters to choke a septic tank.
Your beaches suck. I was there for 3 years and would never return.
Small pockets of the state are very nice. Other than that it is a big shitz hole. Both on the ground and in the air.
Drilling is the least of your worries.
- 7/7/2008 9:46:00 AM
Dollar says My loyalties are to the economic future of our country
And the coast off California will be drilled.
My real concern is what kind of world my 17 year old daughter will live in. I hope its something like I have been fortunate to experience. Without adequate energy sources, it may not.
If my opinion is just based on loyalties, then most of the investors on Wall Street share my loyalties.
And here ya go, with an ad hominem argument to defend your position. Whenever someone resorts to that type of defense, they are whipped. They've gotten their ass beat in a debate and they have nothing left to throw into the discussion.
Thats weak.
That well in 1969 , from my understanding, was a blow out. The technology has moved far beyond that, wells don't blow out anymore. They do things today that were unimaginable 30 years ago, much less 40 years ago.
- 7/7/2008 1:24:00 PM
mac (Doyle McEwen) (71.139.189.1) says PJ I was here in California
at the tome of the Santa Barbara oil fiasco, and it was indeed tragic at the time..The reaction from state politicians to the event was an overkill in most respects..They closed a multimillion dollar industry with little or no though about future ramifications other than it might happen again and it might be worse..Now both of those scenarios were and are possible, they are also a whole lot less likely to happen with new technology we have now than what it was then..Is it absolutely perfectly 100% safe from that type of event, probably not, but then again there are very few things that are 100% sure things..
Personally it would not upset me to start drilling there again, I would not fear another 1969 event to the point of ignoring the true reality of the current oil situation..Will any oil found there bring the gas prices back down to low levels, I doubt it..Would it allow us to be less dependent on foreign oil, most certainly..
mac
- 7/7/2008 6:40:00 PM
PJzaBruin #10908 says Pardon me, Dollar, but try a mirror. You need one.
I didn't dismiss your arguments as "unfounded." In point of fact, I actually recognized the grounds upon which their foundation lies.
By your standard, you were whipped when you made statements like: "PJ gets off base repeating the Dems talking points"
"Repeating the Democratic party talking points can make a person look pretty foolish."
"I guess PJ also wants to talk about the sinking of the Titanic"
"California's unfounded and emotion base environmental fears."
SO Dollar, I apologize for failing to recognize that you were throwing in the towel with you ad hominem arguments. I was just pointing out how weak they were.
- 7/7/2008 8:21:00 PM
PJzaBruin #10908 says "wells don't blow out anymore."
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:uKKocPari-QJ:www.epa.gov/OEM/docs/oil/fss/fss06/foley_2.pdf+%22Blowout%22+%2B%22oil+well%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us&client=firefox-a
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=6297660
http://home.versatel.nl/the_sims/rig/i-blowout.htm
Got any MORE fairytales to share, Dollar?
Note on that last website the OFFSHORE blowouts in 2001, 2002, and 2004
- 7/8/2008 8:50:00 AM
Dollar says You have a loose definition of a blow out, it means something different to you
Course, since your just operating on pure emotion and not with your brain, that's understandable.
The first " blow out ", I read the entire thing and it does not say where the well was located. And they were not drilling the well, it was a completed well and it appears to be an older well , in which they said they were " decommissioning " .
Lot of questions there.
We don't know when the well was drilled ?
We don't know where the well was located ?
We don't know who was operating the well ?
We don't know if that was a gas well blow out and with condensate being spilled or a an oil blow out ? I would bet on the former, because old oil wells don't blow out, a natural gas well could possibly create a small blow out.
Too many unanswered questions on your " blow out " #1.
And your well #2 was drilled in 1959 in Bahrain. They had an NG blow out down hole, that leaked natural gas into an underground saltwater aquifier........................
Bud ............. did you even read this stuff ???? Or are you just so ignorant on the subject that you don't know what your reading ????
Ya see, you have irrational emotional fears that are not knowledge based.
And in your final example your so proud of.......
The Ensco 51 in the GOM, was a natural gas blow out, no oil spilled . The blow out occurred during completion of the well, not during drilling. There was no oil spill.
The Arabdrill 19A was due to poor construction of the jack up. And it was not a " blow out " per se, during drilling operations. It was construction flaw that impacted a production platform ( that's an existing well ) . The leg buckled on the jack up and it severed the production tree on the platform. Sure there may have been an oil spill, but it was not a blow out.
And again, the Adriatic IV in the Mediterranean was a natural gas well not an oil well. Did you read PJ ?? It said they were " drilling a natural gas well " . There was no oil spill.
Ohhhh but wait, my opinion doesn't count because I actually know what's involved in a drilling a well and I know the diff between a NG blow out and an oil blow out, I have " loyalties " that negate my opinion. You only want to hear opinion from people who don't have a clue, like some silly ass environmental type.
We can't have opinions from knowledgeable people......... they don't tell you what you want to hear.
That's typical liberal democrat method of operation............... good grief, what a crock.
- 7/8/2008 9:52:00 AM
Harumph #11038 says Spanked!
That had to hurt, just a little peaches.
BFHP 
