Bad News For the Keystone XL

[Don Quixote]

So is everything else.....Jesus you're older than the dinosaurs, why are you so afraid of everything?

actually, i am only 67 and even according to the christian bible i am not as old as the dinosaurs

as for being afraid of everything, i am not afraid of you or a goodly number of other things including driving or leaving my home weaponless, i have not even applied for a ccw

your penchant for hyperbole is a bit much

is it your desire to debate or insult, if insult, then i will simply place you on ignore

 

[Phantasmal]

Curious Zappa... would you prefer they 'get busy drilling' those deep sea leases vs. getting new leases on land? Which has the greater potential for environmental damage should an accident occur?

In Alaska, both have serious consequences.

 

[cancel2 2022]

In Alaska, both have serious consequences.

Yet your husband works in the oil industry in Alaska.

 

[zappasguitar]

Yes... do you?

We had excess refining capacity... so the industry consolidated. That said, there is a new facility being built in ND. At the same time refineries in NJ are being shut down.

Nice try...oil companies have been saying for YEARS the regulatory burdens placed on them by the Government is too great and building new refineries isn't "cost effective".

We are talking about pipelines, why are you diverting to building new refineries? We have mothballed facilities in TX and we can expand existing facilities in TX far easier than we (or Canada) can build new facilities.

Would you be for additional drilling and production in AK and elsewhere on Federal lands if the regulations and over sight were in place? Many on the left are not ok with it, regardless of regs and oversight.

I wasn't diverting anything...You were the one who first brought up production...

yes, but is every reason a good reason? Or is it some knee jerk reaction to an accident? Or perhaps it is there because some environmental group lobbied for it because they don't want the refineries and pipelines built?

It doesn't matter...as I stated, every regulation is there because someone at some point tried to circumvent the rules to save a few dollars.

No matter what form of energy production we use, there are potential consequences to the environment and the surrounding public. We can try to mitigate that as much as possible, but risk reward is always a factor, as is cost.

And I understand the potential for harming the environment is inherent in this type of activity, but the fact remains that every single time there's been an environmental disaster, the oil companies have spent MILLIONS of dollars and YEARS OF COURT TIME trying to avoid making right the harm to the environment their mistakes/corner cutting/shoddy workmanship have caused.

YYou understand why they don't drill on some of the land they have rights to? On some parcels they don't have the ability (today) to get to the oil in an economically viable way. In others the unused land in the leases simply doesn't have enough (or any) oil. But the leases remain as they are contracts the government gets fees from. It is the cost of doing business with the government. They can't simply turn the leases back in and stop paying if no economically viable oil is found. In addition, some of the 'idle' leases simply take time to get up and running for production. It can take 5-10 years depending on location. Further you add in the political side of the coin which can cause land to be unused. All that and we still haven't gotten to the environmental groups that enjoy blocking and delaying projects.

If they don't have the ability to drill, then give up the lease before filing for a new claim somewhere else. Oil companies shouldn't have the right to sit, in perpetuity, on leases they have no plans on working anytime soon.

If a lease doesn't have enough oil, then what possible purpose is there for the oil company to still hold the lease? Not enough oil to make drilling viable? Then give up the lease and let someone whose maybe a little more innovative take a shot.

Oil companies can't simply turn the leases back in? Well too bad, it's called GAMBLING ladies and gentlemen and sometimes you roll the dice and they come up SNAKEYES!

The bottom line is all you are doing is making excuses for the oil companies.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

another problem with pipelines is terrorists both domestic and foreign...and nut cases that use them for target practice...like in Alaska

the ones over water ways are particularly vulnerable

So what is your alternative? We have to ship the oil to different parts of the country. It is not economically viable to have semis or trains (which are just as susceptible to attack) haul the oil.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Nice try...oil companies have been saying for YEARS the regulatory burdens placed on them by the Government is too great and building new refineries isn't "cost effective".

I wasn't diverting anything...You were the one who first brought up production...

It doesn't matter...as I stated, every regulation is there because someone at some point tried to circumvent the rules to save a few dollars.
And I understand the potential for harming the environment is inherent in this type of activity, but the fact remains that every single time there's been an environmental disaster, the oil companies have spent MILLIONS of dollars and YEARS OF COURT TIME trying to avoid making right the harm to the environment their mistakes/corner cutting/shoddy workmanship have caused.

If they don't have the ability to drill, then give up the lease before filing for a new claim somewhere else. Oil companies shouldn't have the right to sit, in perpetuity, on leases they have no plans on working anytime soon.

If a lease doesn't have enough oil, then what possible purpose is there for the oil company to still hold the lease? Not enough oil to make drilling viable? Then give up the lease and let someone whose maybe a little more innovative take a shot.

Oil companies can't simply turn the leases back in? Well too bad, it's called GAMBLING ladies and gentlemen and sometimes you roll the dice and they come up SNAKEYES!

The bottom line is all you are doing is making excuses for the oil companies.

Do you understand how leases work?

The government is not going to let them out of a lease. They are going to keep pulling in the lease revenue that the oil company is paying them. Why would the government let them out of the lease early? It makes no sense.

The oil companies do not have perpetuity to sit on the leases. The leases are typically less than 7 years. If they find oil, the lease is usually extended to 30-40 years. In some cases, they find oil, but do not have the means to get it out yet. Why should they give up the rights to the oil that they invested money to find?

If the lease doesn't have enough oil, the oil company would LOVE to get out of it. The GOVERNMENT won't let them. Because the government will be able to continue getting the lease fees annually on property that doesn't have oil. Why would the government let them out of such a lease?

After all that 'why don't they turn them in' crap and then you follow up with:

Oil companies can't simply turn the leases back in? Well too bad, it's called GAMBLING ladies and gentlemen and sometimes you roll the dice and they come up SNAKEYES!

You crack me up. You bitch about them not turning them in. You continue to ask why they dont. Then when you realize that I have told you they end up PAYING on worthless leases... you try to tell me that is the gamble they take? No shit captain obvious. Next time perhaps you will learn that before bitching about them not 'turning the leases back in'.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

actually, i am only 67 and even according to the christian bible i am not as old as the dinosaurs

as for being afraid of everything, i am not afraid of you or a goodly number of other things including driving or leaving my home weaponless, i have not even applied for a ccw

your penchant for hyperbole is a bit much

is it your desire to debate or insult, if insult, then i will simply place you on ignore

You're fear mongering to halt necessary growth and progress. Anything and everything is potentially harmful to the environment or vulnerable to terrorists or anything else that you in your fear addled mind may come up with. All things have risk. That you would argue that the mere possibility (not probability) of failure is enough to deny progressing is ridiculous in the extreme.

 

[zappasguitar]

Do you understand how leases work?

The government is not going to let them out of a lease. They are going to keep pulling in the lease revenue that the oil company is paying them. Why would the government let them out of the lease early? It makes no sense.

Yes, I do.

The Government would let them out of the lease if the oil company agreed to pay off the lease early.

The oil companies do not have perpetuity to sit on the leases. The leases are typically less than 7 years. If they find oil, the lease is usually extended to 30-40 years. In some cases, they find oil, but do not have the means to get it out yet. Why should they give up the rights to the oil that they invested money to find?

Why should they give up rights? Because they are sitting on oil they have no intention of pumping out of the ground. The oil companies entered into a contract with this nation to find oil under PUBLIC LAND owned by We The People and PUMP IT FROM THE GROUND...if they aren't willing to follow through then turn the lease in and let someone else take a crack at getting at the oil.

If the lease doesn't have enough oil, the oil company would LOVE to get out of it. The GOVERNMENT won't let them. Because the government will be able to continue getting the lease fees annually on property that doesn't have oil. Why would the government let them out of such a lease?

Like you said, a lease is typically for less than 7 years...why don't the oil companies pay off the remainder of their lease fees in one lump sum and get out from under such an under performing investment?

You crack me up. You bitch about them not turning them in. You continue to ask why they dont. Then when you realize that I have told you they end up PAYING on worthless leases... you try to tell me that is the gamble they take? No shit captain obvious. Next time perhaps you will learn that before bitching about them not 'turning the leases back in'.

You obviously think oil companies should enjoy all the profits from pumping on PUBLIC LANDS but suffer none of the hardships when their gamble doesn't pay off the way they'd like.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yes, I do.

The Government would let them out of the lease if the oil company agreed to pay off the lease early.

What benefit would that be to the company?

Why should they give up rights? Because they are sitting on oil they have no intention of pumping out of the ground. The oil companies entered into a contract with this nation to find oil under PUBLIC LAND owned by We The People and PUMP IT FROM THE GROUND...if they aren't willing to follow through then turn the lease in and let someone else take a crack at getting at the oil.

LMAO... so if they spend the money to find the oil in a location that is not economically viable to produce, they should give up the lease? Again, I don't think you understand how a business works.

Like you said, a lease is typically for less than 7 years...why don't the oil companies pay off the remainder of their lease fees in one lump sum and get out from under such an under performing investment?

Because that makes little sense, unless the government was willing to accept say $2mm up front rather than $3mm over the full term. Otherwise there would be no incentive to the company to do so.

You obviously think oil companies should enjoy all the profits from pumping on PUBLIC LANDS but suffer none of the hardships when their gamble doesn't pay off the way they'd like.

What gives you that idea? I think they should pay the leases regardless of whether they find oil. If they find the oil, then their lease should be extended so they can profit from the risk they took. Nowhere have I suggested they should get out of the bad leases if the gamble doesn't pay off. I was explaining to you why they CAN'T simply walk away and why so many leases are 'not being drilled on'.

 

[Don Quixote]

What benefit would that be to the company?




LMAO... so if they spend the money to find the oil in a location that is not economically viable to produce, they should give up the lease? Again, I don't think you understand how a business works.



Because that makes little sense, unless the government was willing to accept say $2mm up front rather than $3mm over the full term. Otherwise there would be no incentive to the company to do so.



What gives you that idea? I think they should pay the leases regardless of whether they find oil. If they find the oil, then their lease should be extended so they can profit from the risk they took. Nowhere have I suggested they should get out of the bad leases if the gamble doesn't pay off. I was explaining to you why they CAN'T simply walk away and why so many leases are 'not being drilled on'.

from cnn tv, employment is up and the price of oil is falling even though it is still high

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

from cnn tv, employment is up and the price of oil is falling even though it is still high

what does that have to do with what I stated?

 

[Don Quixote]

You're fear mongering to halt necessary growth and progress. Anything and everything is potentially harmful to the environment or vulnerable to terrorists or anything else that you in your fear addled mind may come up with. All things have risk. That you would argue that the mere possibility (not probability) of failure is enough to deny progressing is ridiculous in the extreme.

it is the exposed parts of the pipeline that are most vulnerable, also, pipelines of late are not doing well

somethings are a lot more vulnerable than others

 

[Don Quixote]

what does that have to do with what I stated?

the uneconomic oil leases should be more beneficial economically

got to go - i have a dr appt

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

it is the exposed parts of the pipeline that are most vulnerable, also, pipelines of late are not doing well

somethings are a lot more vulnerable than others

and when were those pipelines built?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

the uneconomic oil leases should be more beneficial economically

got to go - i have a dr appt

Some could be, but they know the breakpoints of where oil needs to be per barrel for them to produce. If they can, they will.

 

[Phantasmal]

Some could be, but they know the breakpoints of where oil needs to be per barrel for them to produce. If they can, they will.

They were exploring and producing when oil was at $25 a barrel. The breakpoint is a bs point.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

They were exploring and producing when oil was at $25 a barrel. The breakpoint is a bs point.

No, different conditions exist for the different types of production. Fracking is more expensive than normal drilling. Deep sea is more expensive than land based. Location relative to the end user also factors in. Type of oil. etc...

Or do you think the same costs exist regardless of location and conditions?

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=367&t=6

a little dated, but it will show some of what I am referring to.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/28/oil-cost-factbox-idUSLS12407420090728

 

[Phantasmal]

No, different conditions exist for the different types of production. Fracking is more expensive than normal drilling. Deep sea is more expensive than land based. Location relative to the end user also factors in. Type of oil. etc...

Or do you think the same costs exist regardless of location and conditions?

I know the differences SF, I live in a state that discusses these issues constantly and it is a bs cry from the oil companies so that states will give them welfare! They use it as leverage, but like I said, no matter the price of oil, they still explore and they still drill.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I know the differences SF, I live in a state that discusses these issues constantly and it is a bs cry from the oil companies so that states will give them welfare! They use it as leverage, but like I said, no matter the price of oil, they still explore and they still drill.

If you know the differences, then how can you call it BS? I agree they do not need subsidies and they do overstate the costs, but that does not change the fact that some oil simply isn't attainable at current prices. They are not going to take the risk of oil prices dropping and reducing their profit margins.

 

[Phantasmal]

If you know the differences, then how can you call it BS? I agree they do not need subsidies and they do overstate the costs, but that does not change the fact that some oil simply isn't attainable at current prices. They are not going to take the risk of oil prices dropping and reducing their profit margins.

Tell me, was there ever a time they stopped drilling?