I'm keenly aware that oil is on your 'bad list' of fuels.

What about natural gas? Like it? Love it? Hate it as badly as crude?

And why?

Just curious.....why is this directed at "ya'll liberals?"

__________________
"Well-Behaved Women SELDOM make history."Laurel Thatcher Ulrich


"Yesterday is but a vision, and tomorrow is only a dream. But today well lived makes every yesterday a dream of happiness, and every tomorrow a dream of hope." Anonymous

"Your candle does not lose it's light by lighting another candle" Generosity

Have the courage to be yourself.

Got me. Got me why the OP thinks the liberals hate crude oil, either.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

I hate it when someone uses the word "liberal" like they called your mama a bad name. Geesh. Why woukd a liberal hate natural gas? Links? I didn't get my job description or maybe I skipped over that paragraph that told me the things I am supposed to hate. Been slipping again.

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

Some "liberals" are against drilling for natural gas because of environmental issues.
Worried about damaged to the ecosystem where the drilling occurs.

As are some "conservatives". Governor Schwarzenegger and former Governor Jeb Bush for instance.

I'm proud to be a liberal but like other posters confused by the assumption that being a liberal means I hate crude oil.

I was answering the post above mine.."usnamom..Why woukd a liberal hate natural gas?"
Sorry, I didn't make that clear in my post.

Yes you are right about some "conservatives" take the same view.
Most people see the "non-drilling" as part of the liberal views.
Certain views on issues are sometimes overwhelming described as liberal or conservative. But not all liberals or conservative agree with every issue that their group represents.

When dealing with "things" that affect society as a whole--why do we have to label certain groups?

Now, if were a gender/religion/race specific issue I can see asking "How do women/Blacks/Catholics feel about XXXX".

I would like to see alternative energy sources fully explored--wind, natural gas, nuclear, ect.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

I see it a lot on here. Since I'm a Republican I'm labeled as anti-choice when it comes to abortion. And then the whole "family values" thing comes up, etc. The Democratic/Liberal party generally is against drilling, but, not everyone fits into that sterotype, just like not EVERY Republican/Conservative fits into the steroetype of being anti-choice on abortion.

I, too, would like alternative energy sources explored, and I don't think inflating our tires is going to do much to solve the dependency on oil.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Let me back up then.... sorry if it seemed I was hitting that question at a weird angle with my use of the word 'liberal.'

As was mentioned above, 'liberal' is fairly commonly associated with strongly environmentalist tendencies. That's why I used that term. You probably aren't going to find many Greenpeace activists voting for McCain, kwim?

I'm visiting family 'back home' in oil country this week. In this area, Oil Country is also Natural Gas Country. We spent last night literally riding the range on horseback from well site to well site with my kids.

Oil is painted as the enemy by many with a more liberal viewpoint. It's said we must move away from it as an energy source. It's said that drilling for it is anything but desirable for the environment. That's the entire argument against ANWR drilling - that people want the *environment* to not suffer from human presence in the form of drilling rigs and pipelines.

I never hear anyone argue that we need to stop using natural gas as a source of anything. But as I rode around those well sites last night, nearly every one that had oil tanks also had the equipment associated with natural gas extraction sitting right by the tanks.

Here, at least, drilling for oil and drilling for natural gas are the same thing. In fact, you don't know what you're going to get when you drill. Sometimes geologists will predict that they're going to hit oil when in fact they get down there and find very little oil and instead, a huge natural gas supply.

The exact same 'footprint' that was created and maintained in a search for oil would be there if someone was searching for natural gas. You end up with a lot of pipes and valves instead of tanks, but generally, once the drilling rig moves off, you're looking at a pad about half the size of a basketball court per well.

Natural gas is cleaner-burning than oil - or at least the process of extracting various gasses from what we ultimately utilize as 'natural gas' is cleaner than refining oil. But the environmental impact of *drilling* is identical for natural gas as it is for oil... so if an extreme environmentalist is against *drilling* for oil, by default, they have to be against *drilling* for natural gas. Same rigs, same places, same resulting well sites if gas is found....

FWIW... we saw deer, bats, and huge jack rabbits last night. I didn't see any lessening of wildlife whatsoever because of the presence of the wells. There used to be a well named after me and another named after my brother out there, and they were no longer producing oil so they were capped about fifteen years ago. My kids wanted to see "mom's well" (not that I OWNED any interest in it - lol!) and though I tried to point it out to them from the road, they couldn't see it. I kept saying, "Look up there - to the right of those big rocks - see where it is a little flatter than... no, no... look to the left of the..." and they never did quite see where it was.

In other words... they did such a good job getting rid of the equipment that to the untrained eye, the former well site is undiscernable from anything else on the ranch.

I'm curious, since you raise the issue: are you anti-choice or is that an issue on which you depart from the GOP?

According to the government and several other sources, proper inflation of your tires will increase your gas mileage by 3%.

It's estimated that, at best, drilling off-shore will increase our oil by 1% and that's 20 years from now.

A tire gauge costs about a dollar -- unless you get one from the McCain campaign, he's charging $25.00 last I saw.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

I am pro-choice.



How much oil would that save, tho, inflating your tires?? You are comparing apples to oranges. 3% of your gas mileage can not be compared to 1% of our oil. I don't follow you on this one.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I've read that we'll see a difference within 10 years (not 20 as mentioned by another poster). But if Congress continues to put off drilling, we're looking at more than 10 years. Had it been started 10 years (or 20 years) ago, then we'd have the oil now.

By continuing to not drill, we're making more problems for our grandchildren. Plus, we're already seeing a difference since President Bush lifted the ban on offshore drilling.

Funny, how the gas prices and mortgage problems didn't start until the democrats took over Congress 2 years ago.

No, I'm not.

Here's one explanation: Bill Scher: Yes Conservatives, Inflated Tires Beats Coastal Drilling

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

You'd have to get every American to start paying attention to the inflation levels of their tires for it to have any impact at all. I really don't think that will happen.

So back to my question. Does the thought of natural gas make environmental leftists gasp in fear?

To the first: I disagree. If I can improve my mileage by 3% per gallon for the cost of a 1.00 pressure gauge, I'm going to do it. I'd wager that more people checked their tires this week than in the past month alone, thanks to the publicity about it.

To the second: no, why would it? I don't know anyone worried about natural gas.

I would like to see wind energy investigated further. I've never heard of a single wind-spill.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

You may find this very hard to believe given that I'm not an "O" supporter, but I actually did a little experiment of my own this week and sadly, didn't get any better mileage. Last Saturday morning I made a 200 mile round trip to pick up my son from camp. I got 22 mpg. I had a tire that was in bad shape (a belt had slipped) and it was making a terrible noise. I'll admit I never pay attention to the inflation levels of my tires. Ever. If one looks low we add some air. Otherwise... nothing.

Anyway... Saturday afternoon I took my van in for a new tire and they checked all the others while it was in the shop. On Sunday I made a trip six hours south to visit my mom, and kept track of my MPG. With my tires supposedly properly inflated, my MPG was 21.8. We took a trip in to the city (2ish hours away) and on that leg of our mini-vacation I got 20.8 MPG. Fortunately, gas was just $3.39 in the city so... lol.

I don't either, but I do know there are people who get all worried about the thought of *drilling* and the impact *drilling* has on the environment. If *drilling* is an issue (that's the whole argument against ANWR exploration, correct?) then they should be equally concerned that we 'get off of' natural gas as a fuel source. But nobody ever mentions that you must *drill* the same holes for NG as oil.


I haven't either, but they do kill birds in pretty big numbers, from what I understand.
USATODAY.com - Wind turbines taking toll on birds of prey


I'm rather intriuged by the wind idea myself, but when I mentioned it to my mom, she didn't care for the idea herself - she thinks the windmills are an eyesore. She really likes Boone Pickens (he's very generous to her alma mater!) and isn't entirely against the wind thing... but at least with an oil or gas well, the tanks are short and squatty and are often painted brown and they don't mess with your view. She has mental pictures of lots of visual clutter if the Plains states become the source of power for the coastal areas.

He's right about one thing though - the wind definitely DOES come sweeing down the plain - there's no doubt about that whatsoever! Where I live now is windy.... but nothing like this!

DH and I don't think inflation has much to do with it, either. I did just come up with a scenario tho:

your car gets 15mpg. Your tires are underinflated and you inflate them to their proper pressure. Assuming you get the 3% increase, that is .45 miles more per gallon. If you have a 20 gallon tank, that is 9 miles per fill up. You could extrapolate that figure to every car, truck, bus, van, whatever....in the country and get the "assumed" extra miles. Again, lots of assumption here....you must first assume that everyone will get the 3% increase in mileage. I didn't. I saw NO difference.

Now, there was a segment on the news a few weeks back (ABC World news) about a man who got like 90MPG by changing his driving technique. No quick starts, and lay off the gas early on....IOW, don't wait until you are right up on the stop sign or red light to break. I did try his suggestions, and with that I did see an increase of about 2MPG. However, this takes planning, as it will now take you longer to get where you are going. Let's face it, if people are inconvenienced a lot, they are NOT going to do it.

So, again, I say inflating our tires will not solve the gas situation.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I'm not so much against drilling as I am drilling our oil. We need to keep our oil for a future that we don't yet see. There was a mention of we need to drill for our grandchildren's sake and I think we need to not drill for our grandchildren's sake. Once we use all of our oil, then we will be entirely dependent on foreign oil.

Gas and oil may be drilled in the same locations but I have yet to hear of a giant gas leak endangering the ecosystem of any waterway or land area. That's not to say it hasn't happened but I've never heard of it. Our house is heated by gas and so is our water. I've used gas most of my life so I have no problem with it being used and drilled for.

As for wind turbines killing birds, I think there must be an answer to that. We just need someone to find it. They put cages on fans to keep little fingers from getting chopped off, so how hard can it be to keep birds out of the wind turbines. As for the aesthetics of the wind mills, I think they are rather cool looking. I've only seen photos, so the noise contamination might be a problem.

Except...I still don't understand this position.

If we switch to alternative energy sources there won't be many things that even use oil. If we change the energy source our vehicles use... why did we bother to 'save' all that oil for our grandkids? Their cars won't use it, anyway. They won't have a *need* for it.

I don't seriously think anyone would believe that one test or two tests is a valid indicator of improved gas mileage, especially if one test was highway driving and the second test city driving. But if you truly don't think it improves gas I guess don't worry about it. All the experts say it does and I have no reason to doubt them.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

No one said it would SOLVE the problem. It's just one of many steps that need to be taken. Recycling doesn't solve the pollution problem, either, but it's one step that helps.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

Kind of like drilling offshore, drilling in ANWR, and extracting shale oil. None of them alone will solve anything, but together, they are helpful steps.

It started last Wednesday, when Sen. Obama first made the suggestion about tire inflation as an energy-saver during a campaign stop in Springfield, Mo. "We could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires," he said.


Speak Softly, and Carry a Good Tire Gauge - WSJ.com

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I'm about as liberal as you can get and I think you are not seeing the entire picture here. Yes, there are environmental issues, but I think those can be worked around. I'm not sure if that would even help us out much. The problem is not that gas or oil is bad; the problem is our dependency on foreign oil. We need to cut back and conserve all our natural resources which also includes natural gas. We do not have an infinite amount of these, so adjustments and new energy sources need to be tapped into. Do we really want to be dependent on the middle east? I think both republicans and democrats would answer no to that one. I'm all for drilling if it will make a difference on our foreign dependence and is done while being respectful to the environment.


And I'm pro choice too

__________________
I dream to escape!

Yes, as something people can do now. He never said it was a solution to all of our energy problems.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

Then explain what he meant when he said , "We could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires."

He did say that we could save ALL the oil they're talking about getting off drilling.

First let me say that I did not listen to him saying this, but ALL actually may be pretty close to accurate. With our natural resources, we could only drill a small amount compared to what we use. I believe it has been said that we could only come up with 1% off the oil we need by drilling at this date. Would we save 1% by checking tire pressure? I don't have a clue, but if you think of it this way, what he says makes sense. I personally am not an Obama fan at all, but what he said in this case does make sense to me.

__________________
I dream to escape!

You're positive of this? We're not exactly leaping into alternative fuel capability.

Here's more about my little test...

The round trip I made to and from getting my son to camp was @ 75MPH down the interstate. I filled up before leaving town and after I got back. I only drove 10 of the 200 miles on a country road, and that was at 60MPH. No city driving at all. One shot tire, three not properly inflated, and at a rate of speed that's not supposed to be optimal for fuel use.

My trip to my moms was not on an interstate - it was on state highways @ 55 and 65 MPH, four properly inflated tires, none of them in bad condition.

I heard on the radio that running the AC messes with fuel efficiency and that if you're going less than 40 MPH you should try to just roll down the window. Over 40 MPH and the windows being down creates a drag that reduces efficiency. I've been trying to use the vent as much as possible and not the AC when I'm going at higher rates of speed.

My van is only two years old. I hate paying through the nose and am doing every single thing 'the experts' tell me will help me use less gasoline than I had been. We've made changes at home that have literally cut our electric bill in half. I would absolutely be thrilled if I could get our gas consumption down similarly and would be delighted if someone could share some tip that would change my life for the better.

FWIW, my DH's car gets 32 MPG in town and 26 on the highway. I took my son *to* camp in his little no-radio stick shift "Do I really feel safe in this tiny thing?" car because I just knew I'd save a huge amount in gasoline. I *did* save some, but was shocked to find that on the highway it used *more* gas than in town!

I am. I really am.

It's the fuel of our time. If in fact the supply is diminishing eventually it won't be able to meet demand no matter what, and the alternative fuels will have to take over.

Once the alternatives have taken over, Ford and Chevy won't be making vehicles that use gasoline. If there is no future in such a car, if you can't pull into a filling station and buy as many gallons as you need - or if it's so costly to obtain because refineries have shut down since there is really no more oil being pulled out of the ground - well... how many liveries do you see these days?

Hanging out in my little one horse town this week I noticed the iron rings embedded into the ancient sidewalks downtown. They were what people used to use to tie their horses up 100 years ago. But no more, because times have changed and they are obsolete.

Eventually oil-powered vehicles will one day be obsolete.

But *now* they aren't. *Now* we need oil to power what we have. Until such time as a transition can be successfully made it's a product with global demand, and I see no reason for us *not* to extract as much as we can.

The profit motive will eventually kick in in a huge way and alternative energies will rule the markets. It's inevitable that the transition will happen, but in the meantime, I see no valid reason to act like oil is evil. Any oil we produce will go on the GLOBAL market - not be reserved merely for domestic use. That's not how it works. But if worldwide supply rises, the ppb will be impacted in a helpful way.

Clinton and Gore prevented drilling in a number of places because, according to them, it would take ten years to see a drop of that oil. Well, here we are ten years later wishing we'd had it. If they were going to prevent exploration in those areas and not work to ensure that alternatives were funded and pushed, well.... here we are in a crunch and not ready for the transition.

Just a little factoid, the first President Bush signed the Executive Order banning offshore drilling in the hope of "lowering" fuel costs. President Bush 2 had 4+ years with a republican controlled legislature to lift the ban, he didn't.

And now our Democrat-led Congress won't do anything about it either. They left on vacation without signing anything into action. There are some Republicans still at the Capital trying to get the democrats back to Washington to get something done right now.

Here's a thought, why don't oil and gas companies drill in some of those 68 million acres of federal land and water they already hold leases on rather then stockpiling more leases while they have a sympathetic CIC. That would be getting something done right now IMO.

Congressman Peter DeFazio - DeFazio Open Letter on Oil Prices

Okay, I'll try to explain this as best as I can...

Just because someone owns a lease to drill somewhere doesn't mean there is oil there. It's like saying there aren't gold mines on every single acre of land. Someone who has a lease most likely has the rights to any and all minerals that can be obtained from that land - gold, uranium, oil, natural gas, iron - you name it, a lease most likely gives you the right to tap whatever might be down there.

Just because leases are held doesn't mean anything, really, other than that a production company has the *right* to hire a drilling company to come in and drill. These days, it costs about $250,000ish or so to drill a well in a relatively well developed region (pipelines in place, etc.) and quite often production companies have to go out and find investors willing to risk a quarter of a million dollars to *see* if there is oil (or natural gas) somewhere.

Quite often a production company will purchase a lease for many, many square miles of mineral rights that haven't had any geologic studies done on the hope that there will be something there. They may be thinking it's possible that there is oil... or possible that there is gold... or iron... or perhaps nobody suspects ANY desirable minerals exist below the surface, but just in case, the company will pick up the lease for next to nothing, taking a chance that within the next ten years something *will* be discovered in the region and they'll be players in the game.

Personal story: My father bought a ranch when I was in middle school from someone who had inherited it 30 years prior. A company had held the mineral rights to that land the entire time the man had owned it and they'd never drilled a single test hole. The company that held the lease was less than honest and had told him that there were no minerals worth mining, and acted like they were doing him a favor by continuing to lease them from him since 'nobody in their right mind would want to lease such worthless minerals.' Consequently, when Dad bought the ranch, the guy threw in the mineral rights because he believed them to be virtually worthless.

Within six years, rigs and then wells started popping up on all the adjacent properties. Lots of them. This was back in the 80's. Dad did a bit of investigating and found out that in fact that company had always known there were minerals there but they simply didn't have the money to drill - and because oil hadn't been worth enough to pay for all the costs associated with drilling, they just hadn't explored it. They had, however, paid a lot of money to have it surveyed and did know they were holding a goldmine of a lease.

It took a long and protracted court case to get the lease from them but eventually the courts saw fit to break that lease that had been perpetually renewed based on the lies they had told. A new company ended up with the lease, drilled, and within a few years there were five wells on the property, which was roughly 460 acres.

When the fourth well was drilled, the third well stopped producing as well as it had because apparently, the fourth was tapping the same pool of oil that the third one was. Eventually the third one (the one named after me) had to just be capped because it was apparent that additional wells weren't resulting in additional oil - it was just an exercise in spending. One hole was sufficient.

The royalty owner tends to get 3/16th of the proceeds and they pay nothing at all in the costs associated with producing the oil and / or gas. The production company is able to market the remaining 13/16ths to companies like Exxon and Conoco-Phillips and the like. The investors who paid for the drilling activity in the first place receive the profits from the sale of the 13/16ths, and they also pay the production company for the work they do on behalf of the well. They pay the pumpers who much check the well each day. The producer gets a cut for their services. The pipeline company needs paid. Companies that maintain the roads across the ranch/farmland get paid by the producer and those expenses are also passed on to the initial investors. Sometimes a producer will net the investor (called a production interest owner) and sometimes a producer will send the entire sum owed to the investor and then bill them for the expenses. I own a small percentage of production in a well and just got a check from the producer today for $39 for the month of July. I have them net me, and had I gotten the entire sum, I'd have gotten a check for $82 and then owed them $43 of it back to cover the costs associated with maintaining the well.

Oil companies must also lease a bit of topsoil from the owner of the land the well sits on. It's very common for one person to own the topsoil and another to own the minerals underneath.

Anyway.... all of this to explain that just because permits were issued or leases were bought doesn't mean there is anything there to drill. The well I own 1% of produced a total of $8,200 worth of oil last month, gross. To drill that well today would cost over a quarter of a million dollas, so it would take approximately ten years before an investor would start to make money over and above their initial investments on such a well.

There are much better places to sink $250,000.

Unless you're drilling in a place you know is very likely to hit a gusher, you really have to weigh whether or not it's worth even bothering.

Now... the ranch I was describing earlier... right now, I believe it has two producing wells still there. Geologists have said that there are still enormous natural gas reserves to be had there - and likely a fair amount of oil as well - but the technology doesn't yet exist to tap it. Horizontal drilling techniques that have emerged in the last few years are quite likely to eventually be perfected to a level that will allow them to get to that gas. The company that holds the lease on those minerals certainly isn't anxious to release the leases back into the open market at auction because they know that they ARE valuable. One could accurately point out that they aren't drilling right now and include that land in the acres and acres *not* being drilled despite the fact that they want other areas open for exploration. They're right. The leases aren't being harnessed.

But they can't be. Not yet. Believe me, if they could be, they would be. The mineral owners would be tickled pink. The production company would be delighted because they'd love to market all that oil and gas. But it's unreachable using current technologies, so the land just sits there.

Offshore drilling: We know how to do that and the equipment exists. ANWR: It's approximately 50 miles from Pruhdoe Bay and therefore we could easily transport it. It makes much more sense, if oil is what we need, that we tap known, plentiful reserves rather than waste billions and billions of dollars exploring areas that might or might not even prove to be fruitful.

Oil has been at the highest prices it's ever been in the history of the world. Don't you think if the leases they held were worth drilling that they WOULD be drilling them? They WANT to sell as much oil as they can!

ETA: I wanted to show some math here because the numbers I posted above were arrived at on the fly and may not be completely accurate....

I said 'my' well grossed $8,200 for the month of July. I see now that the revenue distribution period began on 05/08/08, so this is actually three months worth of revenue. I get random checks and hadn't realized that the last one was at the beginning of the summer.

It grossed $8,200. 3/16ths is taken off the top to pay the royalty owners who actually own the minerals, so $1,537 comes off the top. That leaves $6,662 to divide among the investors. Of that the investors will collectively net about $3,500. Part of what I was netted was just under $6 in taxes. Given that I own roughly 1%, that means of the total well proceeds, about $600 of the $8,200 is attributable to taxes. Mind you - I will pay income taxes on this oil and gas, as well. That tax is NOT my income tax.

So... an investor buying 1%ish like I own would have to invest about $2,500 initially to get in on a well like this. Selling oil and gas at today's rates - the HIGHEST rates in the history of the world, 1% working / production interest nets you $39.50. That's roughly $120 annually. About 15% of that will be paid out in taxes come April 15th, so an investor gets to keep about $105 annually.

If they had to invest $2,500 to buy in, you're looking at 25 years before you begin to turn a true profit. I think a CD is a much better investment.

Obviously, today, it wouldn't make sense to drill that well. It used to be a much better producer than it is now. The thing is... some of those leases that aren't being utilized just so happen to have amounts of oil under them so small that the 'finds' would be similar in quantity to *my* well.

Nobody in their right mind would think that was a good investment. Nobody.

Why would oil companies buy leases on 68 million acres if they didn't think there was a good chance of tapping oil under them in the first place? That wouldn't make any sense either.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

Apparently the company bases it decision on studies but sometimes it is not worth the money to invest in more drilling in that area.

Lifting Drilling Moratoriums--One Important Step to Control Oil Imports | Energy Bulletin

"How the Leasing and Exploration Process Works

When a company decides to take the financial risk on a promising subsurface structure, they usually bid on a cluster of blocks to include the entire structure and its periphery. But if the first couple of exploratory wells are unsuccessful, the company may judge the remaining blocks as too risky for further drilling, and allow the leases to expire.

Much of the 68 million non-producing acres may be in the “risky” category. Legislation to force companies to drill on all leases is superfluous because those leases will eventually expire. The US Minerals Management Service (MMS) can then reoffer expired blocks to see if another company is willing to take the financial risk.

In order to discover major oil fields, the industry needs access to extensive areas where exploratory drilling has been minimal. Most such areas are offshore, currently under moratorium. With access to extensive areas, major companies capable of taking big financial risks can conduct and share geophysical surveys, from which they decipher geologic structures. They drill off-structure core holes to analyze sediments for oil-prone organic material. Companies assemble the data to develop hypotheses about the conversion of organic material into oil in source rock, and its migration and accumulation in commercial concentrations in postulated geologic structures.

MMS then issues a “call for nominations,” asking companies what areas their studies show are prospective. MMS compiles nominations and selects areas that comply with political and environmental issues. Companies bid competitively on blocks that are mapped in a 3-mile by 3-mile grid. High bid wins the right to drill on each block. MMS sets minimum bids for blocks based on prospective attractiveness, timetables for drilling the first well and subsequent wells, and expiration dates.

The “sweaty palms” stage is when a company drills its first well, the ultimate test of their hypothesis for the generation, migration, and accumulation of oil. To maximize data from the well, they conduct detailed seismic surveys to determine the most advantageous path for the well, and to locate depths for capturing samples of rock and fluids. All this takes time and money, but physical information from the subsurface is critical for developing a 3-D geologic picture, to determine subsequent drilling. If the well is a non-producer, the company may recompile all data, revise their hypothesis, and decide that nearby structures are worth testing. But if the sediments do not show promising features, the company may see the weakness of their hypothesis, and decide to abandon the area."

So why is offshore drilling supposedly so much better than all these other leases that are just being ignored?

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

I would suppose that the oil compaines think it will be more profitable to drill offshore. Possibilites maybe exist for more oil, maybe not as much "start-up cost", might be easier to get the oil, etc. So, I would guess the number #1 reason would be money.
I have read that with new technology (from the last couple of years)... studies have been done that can tell with a higher degree of accuracy how much oil/natural gas might be in an area.

If so much of the already leased land/water is undrillable, why don't the companies who hold the leases release them before accquiring more. That is what is a bit concerning to me -- if I understand correctly, most of the leases are now held by big companies and its not like the "olden" days when a wildcatter could strike it rich.

Also, why, when leases are already held and more are going to be sold in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, there are people hell bent on drilling in ANWR, or at least opening ANWR up for leasing.

NewsWatch: Energy: Forget ANWR, how about drilling in NPRA?


newsminer.com • BLM plans another lease sale in National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska

Just wanted to say how much I adore your sig line......and how it represents so many of us "libs" here (seemingly in the minority) who are so often called to task for just such beliefs.....

__________________
"Well-Behaved Women SELDOM make history."Laurel Thatcher Ulrich


"Yesterday is but a vision, and tomorrow is only a dream. But today well lived makes every yesterday a dream of happiness, and every tomorrow a dream of hope." Anonymous

"Your candle does not lose it's light by lighting another candle" Generosity

Have the courage to be yourself.