Oil Execs ... we dont need subsidies

[CJ7]

along with President Bush, the top execs from the big 5 oil companies testified before congress they didnt need subsidies ... among other damning facts that quell right wing talking points

enjoy ..

http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-2-195.pdf

[essence]

It's slightly off topic, and I don;t know if the link will work, but there is a discussion in the SPE group on linkedIn about gulf of mexico drilling, and how Mexico and Cuba are getting involved, and the role of the US government.

Try

http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?vi...2Ak-hmO5pANR81

But you may need to be a member of this group to see it - not difficult to become a member if you are already on linkedin.

It has a lot of discussion by people who know what they are talking about concerning US gov current policies on drilling etc.

[oglfp12]

Every Sunday I look forward to reading Ed Wallace's article in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. From his February 26, 2012 column:

From Reuters, May 12, 2011: Exxon/Mobile CEO Rex Tillerson's Senate Testimony: "When we look at it, it's going to be somewhere in the $60 to $70 range if you said: 'I had access to the next marketable barrel [oil], what would it cost?'"

As reported by Robert Lenzer at Forbes, "[The] Exxon CEO explained the high prioce of oil, then over $100 a barrel, as being caused by oil majors being forced to use futures contracts to lock in current high prices and speculation that is engineered by the high-frequency trading of qualitative hedge funds." That Senate hearing also brought to light another interesting fact: "The average cost today of getting one barrel of oil out of the ground was just $11."

From Reuters, February 6, 2012: "The IEA's last monthly report on Jan. 18 said oil demand was falling for the first time since the global economic crisis of 2009."

So, why the high oil (and gasoline) prices today? As Mr. Wallace said: The gamblers stack the deck. Gary Gensler, formly a Goldman Sachs executive and now head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, last year "cited data that show end-users accounted for just 12 percent of the 'long' positions in futures contracts for benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude oil. That means that 88 percent of bets on price hikes for oil were held by financial players--mainly Wall Street invenstment banks and hedge funds that invest for the ultra wealthy--not interests seeking to use the oil."

There is a lot more data in Mr. Wallace's article about the current reduction in demand and very high reserves, of both oil and gasoline. I'm just too tired to type it all in. The bottom line: Oil and gasoline prices have been disconnected from the "law" of supply and demand. That is why the price is so high. Reducing any tax breaks will have no effect. Increasing drilling or building pipelines will have no immediate effect. The only thing that will have any effect is to reign in the big money speculators by limiting their ability to drive the commodities futures markets.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by essence

It's slightly off topic, and I don;t know if the link will work, but there is a discussion in the SPE group on linkedIn about gulf of mexico drilling, and how Mexico and Cuba are getting involved, and the role of the US government.

Try

http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?vi...2Ak-hmO5pANR81

But you may need to be a member of this group to see it - not difficult to become a member if you are already on linkedin.

It has a lot of discussion by people who know what they are talking about concerning US gov current policies on drilling etc.

thank you sir, I'll give it a shot tomorrow.

I believe its bloujay? who frequents the forum, has been in the oil business over 25 years. His comments on a similar thread were more or less ignored by the usual partisan group .

Iam, and have been PRO offshore drilling for years. Unfortunately, politics are more involved on water than inshore. Florida dissing rigs inside 100 miles because they dont want a tourist to look out the window of their expensive hotel room, and see anything but Gulf comes to mind.

````````````````````

oglfp ...thanks for taking the time to share, very interesting indeed. Wallace sounds like a good read I would enjoy too. Does the FWST have or is he online ?

[essence]

A taster from the SPE discussions on linkedin.

I think there is somewhat more reliable information there, from people in the industry who actually know what is going on, than most of the posters here.

Like I say, I am very open minded and want to be educated, but I'm not goin to get that from a hooker board, nor from most journalists/media/pressure groups.



Originally Obama was publicly for opening Florida offshore to drilling. This all ended on 4/20/10 and then the most extreme measure we all could imagine was imposed. My theory is that advisors misguided the USCIC into using the ad homenim false testimony of BP CEO Tony "I want my life back" Hayward (that the cause was the industry wide use of an insufficient BOP system) to justify an arbitrary, yet absolute moratorium. The deleterious effects of which won't be fully realised for another several years as the drop in production caused by the moratorium/permitorium will appear.

To reason Obama has since discontinued heeding advice from those industry detractors would appear to be ludicrous after hearing his Feb. 23, 2012 speech in Miami. Obama bragged that we had more rigs running than the rest of the world combined (post moratorium/permitorium)? Did it make us feel better to hear him claim that jet fuel can be made from algae and that calls to "keep drilling" are "stupid"? He got a laugh when he said, "You've got a bunch of algae out here, right?". Making a gallon of jet fuel from pond scum is one thing and yet to claim this in a speech opposing continued drilling? Do we really need this misinformation at this point in time? The joke going around now is: "While there may be enough scum in DC to get Airforce One off the ground should we stop drilling and rename it Algae One just yet?" Do Americans need to be encouraged to laugh and joke about energy policy? Is being audaciously cavalier a subtle castration of the most intelligent and realistic thoughts that have a future? While innovation and forward thinking are vital it is just as vital to have a practical and realistic energy policy rooted in the "proven" with provisions for transitioning into the "possible". Not the other way around. Anyone else see this distinction?

Did Obama learn to throw the Oil and Gas industry under the bus from Tony Hayward? Did we do this to ourselves?

Am I the only one that listened to Hayward blame the industry for the spill under oath before congress? And then to observe the White House use this testimony to shut down the gulf? And then after the moratorium those same BOP's are more or less okay after all? If so then was Hayward subsequently accused of false testimony or else perhaps censured for being a bit misleading before congress? Why not? Wouldn't this go along way to slowing the "intelligence failure" that the US has self admittedly slipped into...Is it intelligent to let a foreign CEO sell out US citizens and their energy future in a feeble attempt to save his own thin hide? What does this have to do with the US, and its borders being drilled by less experienced neighbors, being prevented from doing the same by its own government?

This a provocative opening argument for moving beyond an incoherent and unrealistic US/Worldwide energy policy discussion brought to us by the serendipitous and hugely absurd momentous reality we must live in. While this may seem a long winded rant, hasn't the nicety to avoid confronting policies affecting these issues become a luxury we can longer indulge in?

[CJ7]

or


http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-...02&ID=s1156519




the drilling moratorium olny effected wells being drilled that were not yet in production. Actual production on working wells didnt slow down one single barrel.