if you  bellieve that   then stop  drilling  everywhere

Same lame story from the same lame anti drill crowd, a minority of pathetic window licking droolers that live in their parents cellar with 28 cats!......Their old favourite tale is that it will be years before the crude is processed to hit the pumps, funny but years have passed and had we drilled back then it WOULD be at the pumps now!

From the Oil and Gas Journal For crude oil, one-fourth (25.8 percent) of survey respondents would trim their drilling programs at a WTI spot price of $72 a barrel (Figure 4B). At $68 a barrel, 51.6 percent of respondents would cut drilling, while 67.7 percent would pull back at $64 a barrel. Those numbers go to 87.1 percent at $60 a barrel and 93.5 percent at $55 a barrel. Perhaps indicating that any oil price north of $80 a barrel makes for generally acceptable economics, it is not until oil reaches $96 a barrel that a significant number of survey respondents would increase drilling, when 25.9 percent say they would do so. The percentage who would drill more wells jumps to 53.4 at $100 a barrel, climbs to 79.3 at $105 a barrel, and hits 89.7 at $110 a barrel. For the third straight year, respondents to AOGR’s survey project a sizeable increase in drilling for the coming year. Following a 13.8 percent increase in well completions during 2010 and a 21.3 percent year-to-year increase in 2011 as of October, according to counts from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, respondents to the Survey of Independent Operators say they plan to increase drilling in 2012 by another 37.6 percent.

From the Oil and Gas Journal For crude oil, one-fourth (25.8 percent) of survey respondents would trim their drilling programs at a WTI spot price of $72 a barrel (Figure 4B). At $68 a barrel, 51.6 percent of respondents would cut drilling, while 67.7 percent would pull back at $64 a barrel. Those numbers go to 87.1 percent at $60 a barrel and 93.5 percent at $55 a barrel. Perhaps indicating that any oil price north of $80 a barrel makes for generally acceptable economics, it is not until oil reaches $96 a barrel that a significant number of survey respondents would increase drilling, when 25.9 percent say they would do so. The percentage who would drill more wells jumps to 53.4 at $100 a barrel, climbs to 79.3 at $105 a barrel, and hits 89.7 at $110 a barrel. For the third straight year, respondents to AOGR’s survey project a sizeable increase in drilling for the coming year. Following a 13.8 percent increase in well completions during 2010 and a 21.3 percent year-to-year increase in 2011 as of October, according to counts from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, respondents to the Survey of Independent Operators say they plan to increase drilling in 2012 by another 37.6 percent.

Iceman, according to the OIl and Gas Journal. ( I don't think even you would try passing that off as a liberal cut and paste. LMAO ) higher prices means more drilling and lower prices means less drilling and the last three years there has been sizeable INCREASES in drilling. I would think 3 years is long enough for crude to be processed and hit the pumps. LOL

Now post the rest of the story and the relationship between drilling on public land and private land and the royalties involved.

MY point is that there has been a sizeable increase in drilling for the last three years and since prices are set by a global market and not just the market here in the US gas is still high at the pump. The high prices at the pump is what boosts drilling and if prices drop at the pump drilling will also decline. Currently in many cases the U.S. charges lower royalty rates at 12.5% than state government and private landowners do to lease their land to oil and natural gas companies so what is your point Iceman ?

The "sizeable" increase ... minimal at best is also ALL on private land where ovomit and his crew can't stop it!

As seems to be the pattern with you Iceman once again YOU ARE WRONG. All I can say is your sources are pathetic. • From 2004-08, well into Bush’s tenure, oil production on federal lands and waters fell in four of five years, for a net decrease of 16.8 percent. • From 2009-11, the Obama years, oil production rose two of three years on federal lands, for a net increase of 10.6 percent.

The net increase of 10.6 % is shown in the CORRECTED EIA reports and charts but I am sure Iceman you would prefer to go by the incorrect reports even though they published this bulletin stating that those reports were incorrect. LOL. [**Update** The following bullet (and charts below) cites data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). EIA subsequently discovered that the data they used for determining oil and natural gas production numbers on federal lands were incorrect and they are working to fix the problem. The Department of Interior, which regulates energy production on federal lands, is working with EIA to develop a system that more adequately reflects production clearly, and we will update the oil and natural gas production charts when the federal government completes its coordination and updates its information.]

Oil production fluctuated widely in the past five years, thus, giving different results when comparing years. For example, when comparing 2010 with 2007, the federal share of the increase over 2007 was about 72% of the total. On federal lands, there was also an increase in production from 2008-2009 and another increase in 2010 (258,000 b/d), then a decline in 2011. Overall, oil production on federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007.

Barb, the guy gets his news from Rush in-Limbo and Fox un-News. You really don't expect him to take any time to reaserch the facts ... __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Barbara Jones:

The net increase of 10.6 % is shown in the CORRECTED EIA reports and charts but I am sure Iceman you would prefer to go by the incorrect reports even though they published this bulletin stating that those reports were incorrect. LOL. [**Update** The following bullet (and charts below) cites data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). EIA subsequently discovered that the data they used for determining oil and natural gas production numbers on federal lands were incorrect and they are working to fix the problem. The Department of Interior, which regulates energy production on federal lands, is working with EIA to develop a system that more adequately reflects production clearly, and we will update the oil and natural gas production charts when the federal government completes its coordination and updates its information.]

Seti, I can always hope. LOL Anyway this admin has concentrated more on renewable energy than they have oil production that is true. But even if they had pushed oil production more on federal lands and the increase was fifty times more than it has been it would not have lowered prices at the pump. A decrease in demand due to alternative energy is the only thing that will lower prices at the pump. I expect that is what people who depend on the oil industry for income are so afraid of.

Barbara Jones:

As seems to be the pattern with you Iceman once again YOU ARE WRONG. All I can say is your sources are pathetic. • From 2004-08, well into Bush’s tenure, oil production on federal lands and waters fell in four of five years, for a net decrease of 16.8 percent. • From 2009-11, the Obama years, oil production rose two of three years on federal lands, for a net increase of 10.6 percent.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As usual, your stupidity knows no bounds, but your manipulation to fool those ignorant of the industry is cunning!! blobara and shiti03, try a dictionary you morons, DRILLING IS NOT PRODUCTION, but you are self proclaimed experts in the field and are just confusing the two to fool your idiot followers no doubt!!

BTW, My main income has not been from the oil industry for the last 2 years, I only go out on the more problematic jobs or take up and relays now..

Barbara Jones:

Seti, I can always hope. LOL Anyway this admin has concentrated more on renewable energy than they have oil production that is true. But even if they had pushed oil production more on federal lands and the increase was fifty times more than it has been it would not have lowered prices at the pump. A decrease in demand due to alternative energy is the only thing that will lower prices at the pump. I expect that is what people who depend on the oil industry for income are so afraid of.

..........................................As I said earlier currently prices are based on Supply and Demand...Oil is being used a hedge...so the value is based on the fact that currently we are dependent on oil and therefore it has value into the foreseeable future and therefore is a safe place to invest or park money....now as you say Barbara when Alternative sources are realistic and reduce the demand of oil and make the future value of oil questionable...yes that would effect prices....Of course the Natural Gas Conversion will reduce prices at the pump by reducing demand for oil...so your statement about Alternative energy being the ONLY thing is not really accurate unless you consider Nat Gas to be an Alternative energy source...it is much cleaner than Gasoline or Diesel...So it is a step forward as far as emissions from vehicles...

Robert,  I expect natural gas will go the same way as diesel.  everyone went to diesel because that was quite a bit  less expensive but then the demand for diesel pushed the prices of it higher than regular gas at the pumps.  Natural gas will be the same.  Prices for all non-renewable resources will always increase as demand increases.

That is a point Barbara but Natural Gas is not Diesel....Nat Gas is GOING to replace Gasoline and Diesel as the primary fuel for transportation...it is not just a cost issue....well sort of....Cap and Trade is going to become a reality as the way to handle Carbon Emissions...Nat Gas produces dramatically less carbon than either gasoline or diesel...also engines last longer on Nat Gas....Fracking will make gas available at reasonalbe costs to most of the World....There is also another reason why Nat Gas will replace all other fuels...It turns out that the techniques used to frac Gas have been shown to work to recover Methane from Methane Hydrates...This is methane that is trapped under the sea floor...It is much more abundant than oil and nat gas combined...and this will be used in the future in our infrastructure we build out for Nat Gas...So I just don't see Nat Gas being a FAD like diesel was...It is the Energy source of choice into the foreseeable future....

Robert. that sounds reasonable.

Robert Biegler:

That is a point Barbara but Natural Gas is not Diesel....Nat Gas is GOING to replace Gasoline and Diesel as the primary fuel for transportation...it is not just a cost issue....well sort of....Cap and Trade is going to become a reality as the way to handle Carbon Emissions...Nat Gas produces dramatically less carbon than either gasoline or diesel...also engines last longer on Nat Gas....Fracking will make gas available at reasonalbe costs to most of the World....There is also another reason why Nat Gas will replace all other fuels...It turns out that the techniques used to frac Gas have been shown to work to recover Methane from Methane Hydrates...This is methane that is trapped under the sea floor...It is much more abundant than oil and nat gas combined...and this will be used in the future in our infrastructure we build out for Nat Gas...So I just don't see Nat Gas being a FAD like diesel was...It is the Energy source of choice into the foreseeable future....

>>> It was the rage in Ontario in the 80's some of the transport companies even converted their tractors to it, while I haven't been back in 20 years I think the regionals are still running it in their vehicles.