"Big Oil has 68 million acres" proven TRUE - Exxon Mobil FORCED to drill or give up leases

ck4829

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-10-09 10:43 AM
Original message

"Big Oil has 68 million acres" proven TRUE - Exxon Mobil FORCED to drill or give up leases

"Exxon Mobil says it has begun drilling at Alaska's Point Thomson oil and gas field.

Patrick McGinn, a company spokesman, says drilling operations were launched Friday.

In February, Exxon returned eight of its Point Thomson leases that were part of 13 added to the field in 2002. Exxon had promised to drill wells and begin producing oil within four years, but no drilling occurred.

The state has been fighting with the Irving, Texas-based oil giant and other lease holders over the lack of progress there.

Alaska officials have tried to cancel the leases, but in January it did allow Exxon to drill on two leases after the company said it would start production within five years."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_exxon_point_thomson

You see, Exxon really was just sitting on oil reserves while oil was in the middle of record high prices. Makes one wonder how many of those 68 million acres they already got are just full of oil.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

aquart

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-10-09 10:46 AM
Response to Original message

1. Gosh. What a surprise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

safeinOhio

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-10-09 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #1

2. very simple

Oil reserves = company value = stock price.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

krispos42

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-10-09 10:55 AM
Response to Original message

3. Thom Hartmann was absolutely right

They used the gasoline-price crisis (or created it) to "shock doctrine" a grab for the leases to drill. Leases which have no expiration date and require only a nominal per-acre yearly fee.

They want the oil on their books immediately, and in the pipeline... whenever.

Like I was telling people... THERE WAS NO SHORTAGE OF OIL. All orders were being filled, all tankers and pipelines were full, all refineries were functioning.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lostnotforgotten

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-10-09 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #3

4. Yes, But This Analysis Conveniently Dismisses the Global Drop In Demand

Demand Destruction = Lower Price Per Barrel = Lower Pump Prices

Economics 101!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

krispos42

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-10-09 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #4

5. The drop in demand was in comsumption, not in speculation

There was a shortage of crude oil futures to trade on the commodities markets.

In other words, the rich and powerful desperately wanted to buy oil futures as a short-term or long-term investment, which started a feeding frenzy for the pieces of paper that said somebody owned X barrels of crude. All the wealthy people and the powerful investment houses wanted a piece of the action because the price was climbing so steeply... which causes the price to rise even steeper.

A classic pump-and-dump.

The laws of supply and demand still held, but you have to look at the supply of oil to buy and sell as an investment, as opposed to the oil you buy and sell to consume.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lostnotforgotten

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-10-09 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. Drop In Consumption = Drop In Market Demand = Drop In Price Per Barrel

eom

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

krispos42

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-10-09 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #7

8. Yet the evidence says otherwise

Oil prices doubles in an environment of steady supply and steady consumption, with no changes to the stragtegic areas that produce the oil.

There was a rise in market demand for ownership of oil as an investment vehicle, not as a raw material. It's like how the stock price of a company can shoot up and down, especially on an IPO... despite the fact that the company's daily revenue was the same a week before the IPO and a week after, the price of an IPO stock and easily treble, based soley on the market demand for the physical shares of stock.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lostnotforgotten

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-10-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #8

11. I Don't Buy The Speculation Argument

eom

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kentuck

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-10-09 12:27 PM
Response to Original message

6. I think it has been reported that these fields have more proven oil reserves...

than ANWR? They really don't know how much is in ANWR but they do know how much is in these oil reserves.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Blue_In_AK

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-10-09 06:50 PM
Response to Original message

9. They've been sitting on the Pt. Thomson leases

for thirty years, which is why the state moved to cancel them. Exxon is no friend of Alaska, and they prove it again and again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bemildred

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-10-09 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #9

10. Who can forget the Exxon Valdez? nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 11:19 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.