The payroll tax expiration fight thread.

[twa]

Peter there are companies with cash in hand to buy leases and a LOT of oil and NG sitting out there.

I certainly have no objection to incentives in leases to speed up development(some of ya'll do though with the uninformed views on oil 'subsidies')

what lease is for 50 yrs w/o developing production?

[Larry]

Peter there are companies with cash in hand to buy leases and a LOT of oil and NG sitting out there.

And there are a lot of leases that have been sold, that are sitting idle.

[twa]

And there are a lot of leases that have been sold, that are sitting idle.

not all leases can be developed cost effectively at this time or even have recoverable oil.(they cannot even do seismic tests w/o being granted the right)

if you don't like the way things are being done,change them....the US sets the terms of the lease

[Larry]

not all leases can be developed cost effectively at this time or even have recoverable oil.(they cannot even do seismic tests w/o being granted the right)

And yet, your position in every single thread, is to claim vast rewards, if we'd just sell more leases.

[Thiebear]

When your leaders are saying NO to the project it causes others to not 'jump' in.

If there was a "get behind this" fight, it would probably go a bit faster.

[PeterMP]

Peter there are companies with cash in hand to buy leases and a LOT of oil and NG sitting out there.

I certainly have no objection to incentives in leases to speed up development(some of ya'll do though with the uninformed views on oil 'subsidies')

what lease is for 50 yrs w/o developing production?

For areas that haven't been opened for leasing there is very little data for what is there. Based on the data that we do have, most of the most productive areas have been opened.

Based on the data that we do have, most of the areas that haven't been opened have little oil and there is no reason to believe that for the most part that they wouldn't suffer even larger issues with respect to ecnomical competitiveness as the areas that have been opened and aren't being used (an estimated 86 billion barrells of oil in the Gulf alone).

---------- Post added December-9th-2011 at 11:20 AM ----------

not all leases can be developed cost effectively at this time or even have recoverable oil.(they cannot even do seismic tests w/o being granted the right)

if you don't like the way things are being done,change them....the US sets the terms of the lease

And of course the oil industry has NO influence on the US government.

That when the Obama adminstration started talking about stregenthing use it or lose protocols, the oil industry and many of their supporters, including members of Congress didn't throw a fit.

DESPITE the fact that our current leasing program is one of the best deals on the planet for them.

[twa]

And yet, your position in every single thread, is to claim vast rewards, if we'd just sell more leases.

Do you want to deny the billions we have gotten from just leases?

How about the other billions from those that have been developed?

What's the govt take on 400k bbls a day from Bakken?..a lease that was undeveloped for awhile

add

Peter there is little data because it is forbidden to test, wouldn't having more information be better?

[PeterMP]

Peter there is little data because it is forbidden to test, wouldn't having more information be better?

Information costs money.

I live in NJ not to far away from the DE river. If you pay for it, I'll have my land tested for the possiblity of oil, and then I'll split any profits from any oil that is found there 75/25 towards you.

Should I start contacting people?

Or are you better off w/o the information?

[Thiebear]

Information costs money.

I live in NJ not to far away from the DE river. If you pay for it, I'll have my land tested for the possiblity of oil, and then I'll split any profits from any oil that is found there 75/25 towards you.

Should I start contacting people?

Or are you better off w/o the information?

Serious strawman sidetrack there.

[PeterMP]

Serious strawman sidetrack there.

No, it isn't. The federal government carries out some tests to determine the value of the leases before leasing them. The oil industry frequently lease land that isn't productive, but they aren't leasing that they have NO IDEA if it'll be productive. They aren't leasing land with essentially NO DATA.

There are costs associated with those tests for the federal government. The federal government already paid to do a round of tests. The areas that looked most interesting were tested further, and most of the most promising areas have been opened up.

twa is suggesting that we go back and look at areas that were passed over the first time and relook at them.

In some cases, it might be worthwhile, but generally I doubt it will be, especially when there are 86 billion of oils sitting in the Gulf untapped.

[twa]

Private companies are willing to pay for the privilege of testing areas....if not what have you lost?

we even have minimum bids to make sure it is worth the bother

add

your most of the most is rather hinky

But I'm open to being proven wrong by the opening of bids

All this crawfishing is nothing but the same tactic you said the Greens use to stop projects

[PeterMP]

Private companies are willing to pay for the privilege of testing areas....if not what have you lost?

we even have minimum bids to make sure it is worth the bother

add

your most of the most is rather hinky

But I'm open to being proven wrong by the opening of bids

All this crawfishing is nothing but the same tactic you said the Greens use to stop projects

Where is there data supporting that there is a lot of oil that you want to see opened up?

Really?

Then why do we need deep water royalty relief?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Water_Royalty_Relief_Act

And this claim that there is oil out there when the existing evidence says there isn't that will make independent is the game the oil companies use to put pressure on the government to do the tests to determine if there is oil out there so that they can determine if they really want to lease the land, and use a hard government number to put pressure on the government if they want to.

Look at what you've done in this thread:

1. There's lots of oil out there (being a net resource generator was mentioned).

(I point out that actually, we don't have a lot of data for some places, but there doesn't actually seem to be too much oil out there and certainly not enough for us to be net oil exporter.)

2. Well, we should get the data.

(I point out that getting the data is expensive.)

3. Companies will pay for the right to get the data.

(Only, if you give them a real sweatheart deal on anything that they do fine like royalty relief.)

**EDIT**

I want to point out that I'm not saying there is NO WHERE that we could sell leases for under a reasonable plan. When Obama took office, they cancelled some leases that had been sold in Utah. I believe some, but not all of that land ended up being leased, but clearly, there it might make sense to lease land.

In the Gulf, there are some areas where there is some oil that it might make sense to lease the land.

And of course the SMALL (as based on the real size of ANWR; not as compared the lot that I own) PART of ANWR where it isn't legal to drill.

The idea that there is some large treasure trove off the east coast, FL keys, and even towards Cuba isn't really supported by the data. You might get some company to pay for a lease, but it would almost come w/ some sort of really low royalties or even a royalty exemption based on what we know.

And certainly NOT enough to make us a net produce of oil.

[twa]

There are large deposits off Florida of both oil and NG to start with

Why do you ignore what royalty relief is and how it has benefited the US oil supply,jobs,royalties AND tax revenues?

or do you even know what a volume threshold is?(which determines when DWRRA royalties begin)

If they drill a productive well there is NO royalty relief

[PeterMP]

There are large deposits off Florida of both oil and NG to start with

Why do you ignore what royalty relief is and how it has benefited the US oil supply,jobs,royalties AND tax revenues?

or do you even know what a volume threshold is?(which determines when DWRRA royalties begin)

If they drill a productive well there is NO royalty relief

"While precise estimates remain elusive at this time, our work to date shows that royalty relief under the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995 will likely cost billions of dollars in forgone royalty revenue—at least $1 billion of which has already been lost. In October 2004, MMS estimated that forgone royalties on deep water leases issued under the act from 1996 through 2000 could be as high as $80 billion."

Where off of FL?

FL has a big coast line.

[twa]

Does anyone else find it amusing that a thread on tax relief to stimulate the economy ignores the effects of high energy costs and the vast sums we outsource for it?

Where is your payroll tax savings going?

[Thiebear]

Creating the pipeline and pumping oil through it at discounted prices.

More jobs n cheaper oil

Yay!

[twa]

Where off of FL?

FL has a big coast line.

Try over there near where the others are drilling for a hint :pfft:

How much did the DWRRA bring in....and continues to bring in

But if you want to continue to send money and jobs to other countries that is certainly doable....as we have done.

It's just trillions...no biggie:mad:

[Larry]

Does anyone else find it amusing that a thread on tax relief to stimulate the economy ignores the effects of high energy costs and the vast sums we outsource for it?

Where is your payroll tax savings going?

Or maybe people have noticed that no matter how many goodies the government gives to the oil companies, energy prices keep going up?

Seriously, twa, trying to claim that handing the oil companies goodies --> lower energy prices --> better economy --> is an attempt to pay for a tax cut, is even less believable than "trickle down economics".

This pipeline project might be good for the country. (Frankly, I'm leaning a little in that direction.) But trying to claim that it has something to do with paying for a tax cut is even more spin than you usually use.

[twa]

Is the DWRRA goodies......or simply a way to get hundreds of billions of investment dollars in the US while expanding oil supply?

What do you think prices would be w/o the added production?(or the tax revenue)

I don't think most of you realize just how bad the economy is w/o the expanded domestic production.

[PeterMP]

Try over there near where the others are drilling for a hint :pfft:

How much did the DWRRA bring in....and continues to bring in

But if you want to continue to send money and jobs to other countries that is certainly doable....as we have done.

It's just trillions...no biggie:mad:

What is trillions?

Look, you want to claim that companies are willing to pay for the right to test for oil in low probablity places. I am going to point out the facts that they REALLY aren't paying because the federal government is giving them a HUGE break to the extent of BILLIONS of dollars, which easily offsets the costs of the leases.

"Offshore drilling on the US Atlantic coast for oil and gas took place from 1947 to the early 1980s. Oil companies drilled 5 wells in Atlantic Florida state waters and 51 exploratory wells on federal leases on the outer continental shelf of the Atlantic coast. None of the wells were completed as producing wells. All the leases have now reverted to the government."

"Cuba has three producing offshore oil fields within 5 km of its north coast opposite Florida.[6] The US Geological Survey estimates that the North Cuba Basin contains 5,500,000,000 barrels (870,000,000 m3) of undiscovered petroleum liquids and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, almost all in the offshore part of the basin."

That's 5.5 billion well within Cuban waters (keep in mind that there are leases on an estimated 86 billion that are untapped in the Gulf ALONE).

Further out from Cuba:

"In 2004 the Spanish oil company Repsol-YPF drilled in deep Cuban waters between Cuba and the Florida Keys, and found an oil deposit; the deposit was judged noncommercial, and the hole was plugged."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_drilling_on_the_US_Atlantic_coast#Offshore_Cuba

not so much.

Want to try again?

---------- Post added December-9th-2011 at 04:22 PM ----------

Is the DWRRA goodies......or simply a way to get hundreds of billions of investment dollars in the US while expanding oil supply?

What do you think prices would be w/o the added production?(or the tax revenue)

I don't think most of you realize just how bad the economy is w/o the expanded domestic production.

I will GUARANTEE you the oil industry is NOT losing money drilling in the US.

They aren't doing us a favor to save our economy.

NOBODY is arguing against expanding domestic production.

[twa]

Trillions is what we have sent to other countries for oil...as well as losing jobs and tax base ect

Why the fear of offering leases for SALE?

SOMEBODY sure as hell is opposing it

[PeterMP]

Trillions is what we have sent to other countries for oil...as well as losing jobs and tax base ect

Why the fear of offering leases for SALE?

SOMEBODY sure as hell is opposing it

Okay, I just wanted to make sure you weren't claiming the government was reaping trillions of dollars from the royalty relief zones.

We can exand domestic supply WITHOUT leasing more land (Right, that's what you were talking about expanding domestic supply. NOT just giving out more leases for the sake of giving out more leases.). There are 86 BILLION barrells of oils that are untapped in leased sites in the Gulf of Mexico. There's only estimated to be 18 billion barrells off shore areas that are closed to drilling.

MAYBE we should ask why those 86 BILLION aren't moving (and don't blame the freeze, they've had access to most of that for years, and the freeze was tied to cleaning out the mess that was the MSM and things are now being processed).

MAYBE we should consider that given the REAL costs of the lease, the benefit the oil companies get from sitting on the supplies (in terms of their stock prices) offsets the profits they'll get from taking it out given the current price of oil.

AND Obama recently opened MORE area up for drilling:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-opens-more-leases-offshore-oil-drilling-002416666.html

And did you hear a peep out of anybody here about it?

NO!

---------- Post added December-9th-2011 at 04:49 PM ----------

Does anyone else find it amusing that a thread on tax relief to stimulate the economy ignores the effects of high energy costs and the vast sums we outsource for it?

Where is your payroll tax savings going?

To China because they can make things cheaper because they don't pay the real price of their energy consumption because we pay to keep the global fossil fuel industry "safe".

[twa]

Maybe there is no drilling on those areas because you are overlooking things in your figure?

We have raised the cost of leases...afraid to take their money?

I'm aware of the new areas Obama FINALLY approved(while taking others back off the table),I was even complimentary of it.

I agree it's China and others, but are you willing to deal with the result of our drawing back?

I'm willing,but I'm not real sociable,nor mind bloodshed.....Ron Paul for POTUS

[Larry]

And speaking of the payroll tax expiration . . .

Remember Alice?

This is a song about Alice.

And the restaurant.

[PeterMP]

Maybe there is no drilling on those areas because you are overlooking things in your figure?

We have raised the cost of leases...afraid to take their money?

I'm aware of the new areas Obama FINALLY approved(while taking others back off the table),I was even complimentary of it.

I agree it's China and others, but are you willing to deal with the result of our drawing back?

I'm willing,but I'm not real sociable,nor mind bloodshed.....Ron Paul for POTUS

1. Obama didn't take any active areas away. He didn't take any leases away.

2. There should be something between intelligently rethinking our foreign policy and is it really effecient, and we need to pull out of every country in the world AND eliminate all the Civil Rights legislation.