4 comments

• 

  jimscarantino

  11 months ago

  Nice article, David. But it would have been nice for Tom Udall to hold his town hall with more than a few handpicked people, say at a UNM conference hall where the public in general was invited with advance notice. Also, if he can hold a staged meeting like this, why can't he debate Steve Pearce on energy policy? We need to hear the both of them on this most important issue of the day. That said, Tom needs to elaborate on the "I favor responsible drilling" line and state where exactly he will allow drilling. He's reiterated his opposition to allowing development of the estimate 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. Will he vote to ever lift the moratorium on drilling on the outer continental shelf? He says he's not against drilling "everywhere" off the coasts, but until the moratorium is lifted, we can't begin to tap any of the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas believed to be there. I wish a journalist would ask Tom Udall point blank: yes or no, will you vote to lift the offshore drilling moratorium?
  reply
• 

  barbwire

  11 months ago

  Jim, Jim, what you keep forgetting is that there are tons of leases already out there that the oil companies are ignoring to keep the price up. According to a release by The Wilderness Society that uses Interior Department data:
  
  http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Release/2008...
  
  Quote:
  
  "More than 44 million acres of public lands are leased for oil and gas development, according to a new Wilderness Society analysis of Interior Department data. The analysis points to an explosion of drilling on federal lands, with 7,124 drilling permits (APDs) issued in 2007, a new record for the Bush Administration. Nationwide, the leasing is outstripping the oil and gas industry’s capacity to drill, as industry is drilling on only a quarter of the leases they hold. [View the detailed analysis]"
  
  Once the oil companies "responsibly" drill those, we can start talking about ruining our last best places drilling a poison that will ruin the planet for hundreds if not thousands of years. And in the meantime zero subsidies should go to oil. They should all be going to research and development of renewables. End of story. The oil age is over and eventually the deregulated, multi-national speculators will be brought into line, one way or another.
  
  Pete Domenici had decades to get it right, often with a Repub prez and Congress, and he didn't. Now that he sees what has been wrought and he's ending his career, he suddenly discovers CAFE standards.
  
  By the way, it was George and Jeb Bush who pushed through the offshore drilling ban off Florida, not Dems.
  reply
• 

  jimscarantino

  11 months ago

  Barb, Barb: What you forget is that a mineral lessee loses the lease after ten years if they don't work it. That means they lose the millions they paid to get the lease. Why would they sit on reserves that could potentially be worth more than they paid for the lease? It doesn't make sense. That's why I challenge you to identify one mineral lease, on land or off shore, that has economically feasible oil deposits that are sitting idle as the lease runs out. That means, in the case of a deep sea well, deposits that exceed the $100 million it costs to explore and build a platform. To make it easier, just identify one lease on land that has economically feasible oil or gas deposits that is being let to run out without development. As for the Wilderness Society release, it does not back out any acres where "dry holes'" were drilled, where the formations were found to be nonproducing, or acres held up by litigation.
  
  Also, what is the rationale of keeping anything off the table? We need more and more oil now, and to do that you have to start development now. The oil futures markets will see these indefinite delays as a continuation of our unilateral oil and natural gas disarmament. If the futures markets knew we were finally going to go after our own resources, they would react. Just the way they react when new discoveries are announced...even though those discoveries won't produce for years to come.
  
  Udall did answer my question: In today's Journal he restated his opposition to lifting the moratorium on developing an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil on the Outer Continental Shelf.
  reply
• 

  barbwire

  11 months ago

  Jim, Jim, you're doing what you usually do. Raising a straw man argument. This "show me one lease" stuff doesn't cut it. You show me some citations and sources for what you're saying and then I might take what you are saying somewhat seriously.
  
  We don't need more and more oil now unless we want to turn the planet into a hell hole. You know that. At least I think you do. And besides, we get the majority of our oil from Canada now and their supply is pretty unending at this point. It's the speculation and weak dollar that are driving the price up this rapidly and hugely, not any sudden shortage of oil. The price of oil was rising gradually until the dollar tanked. Then it shot up. Get it?
  
  Our supplies in the Arctic and offshore are minuscule in the bigger picture. Speculators are speculating with huge amounts of capital in oil for reasons similar to why they are investing hugely in gold and other precious metals, etc. The dollar is tanking. Real estate is tanking. Stocks are tanking Commodities are about the only thing left.
  reply