DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk
Well thats not true at all. Mineral rights make land values very much different. Add to that if they bought the lease they've already probably had a permit to test drill it. Oil is there. It isn't a mystery.
The value of stuff still in the ground is not actual value, but potential value. Oil has to be extracted, aka "produced," and that takes money. The more money it takes to produce, the higher the price has to be for it to be worth extracting. If oil prices aren't high enough, the harder to produce oil won't be produced. Those production wells will be put on hold.
quote:
And no, I think the Oil companies are pretty smart. Got a fucking sweetheart deal from the Uncle Sam and have got the rules of the game in their favor. If it is such a raw deal...why are they clamoring for more? Supply Demand....Free Market system at work. Uncle Sam holds the chips....we need to use them.
Here's an interesting report.
For reference...
quote:
The total revenue, as a percentage of the value of the oil and natural gas produced, received by government resource owners, such asU.S. federal or state governments is commonly referred to as the “government take.” For example, a government take of 50 percent means that the government receives 50 percent of the cash flow produced from an oil or gas field.
Further...
quote:
Further, the size of oil and gas reserves, the costs of exploration and development, and the stability of the government and regulatory environment play a role in companies’ investment decisions. In many regards, the United States is a desirable place to invest in oil and gas development and production. For example, of non-OPEC countries, the United States held almost 10 percent of oil reserves as of 2006. In addition, including the existence of a nearby market for all that is produced, the United States is generally considered a stable place to invest, especially when compared to many countries, such as Venezuela and Nigeria, that have large oil and gas reserves. For example, in Venezuela, it was reported last year that the government had taken a series of steps to increase the government take as well as take greater control over oil operations in that country, and in Nigeria, it was recently reported that there have been repeated instances of oil company employees being kidnapped or attacked. However, much of the estimated oil reserves in the United States, such as those in the deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico, and the smaller pockets of oil remaining in mature oil fields will be more costly to develop than oil in some other regions, and these higher costs are a deterrent for investment. In addition, to the extent that environmental regulations in the United States are stricter than in some other oil producing countries, this could increase compliance costs and necessitate to some extent a lower government take in the United States. Further, to the extent that labor costs are a factor in determining the profitability of oil development projects, the United States may have higher labor costs than some other oil producing countries, and this would also necessitate, to some extent, a lower government take.
So, what is it we're talking about with the "government take?"
quote:
[•]BP (formerly British Petroleum), one of the world’s largest oil companies. testified that the federal government’s take for leases in the Gulf of Mexico (45 percent) was lower than 9 out of 10 other fiscal systems presented, including Colorado, Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma, California, and Louisiana (between 51 percent and 57 percent).
[•] ConocoPhillips, Alaska’s number-one oil producer in 2005, testified that the federal government’s take for leases in the Gulf of Mexico (43 percent) was lower than all 8 other fiscal systems presented, including the United Kingdom (52 percent) and Norway (76 percent).
[•] CRA International (formerly Charles River Associates), a global firm specializing in business consultancy and economics, testified that the federal government’s take in the Gulf of Mexico—both deepwater (42 percent) and shallow water (50 percent)—was lower than the 6 other fiscal systems it evaluated, including Australia (61 percent).
[•] Daniel Johnston and Company, an independent petroleum advisory firm providing services to the oil and gas industry, testified that the federal government’s take in the Gulf of Mexico for deepwater (between 37 and 41 percent) was 4th lowest and for shallow water (between 48 and 51 percent) was 8th lowest among 50 fiscal systems it evaluated.
[•] Van Meurs Corporation—a company which provides international consulting services in several areas including petroleum legislation, contracts, and negotiations—reported that the federal government’s take in the Gulf of Mexico (40 percent) was the lowest among 10 fiscal systems it evaluated, including Alaska (53 percent) and Angola (64 percent).
These studies were done in 2006. The Federal Government's take ranged from 40% to 51%, depending on the location of the well. Feel like you're getting more for "your" resources now?
quote:
So our energy independence depends on the exploration of federal lands? Are you sure thats what you wanna go with?
Not necessarily Federal lands, but US lands, for sure. I mean, how can we be energy independent if we aren't drilling for our own oil and nat. gas?
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Drilling - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread