Moderator: Pops

mos6507 wrote:Why can't we just "drill, baby, drill"



LinkThe issue of how the world’s biggest oil companies will increase reserves has become increasingly important amid the resource nationalism that has put up barriers to new sources.




The other thing I thought about was that Chesapeake sold off it's Fayetteville field (nat gas) because it couldn't afford the cost of fracking....
It's buying up oil plays in the Bakken!

Hawkcreek wrote:Plantagenet wrote:highlander wrote:That is because it is all locked up in ANWR.....govt's will submit, no oil will be found there will be blood.
Don't worry---Obama will protect that frozen tundra from being ravished by the drills of those rascally evil oil companies!!!!
Who needs those good-paying jobs in the oil biz anyway. Aren't we all happier knowing that all that oil under the ground in ANWR is safe and sound and protected from being disturbed as long as Obama is president!!!!
Don't you find it strange that when both houses and the executive branch were totally locked by by conservatives (for 6 years under the worst of all presidents), that even then they didn't open ANWR to drilling. And now it is all Obama's fault?
The inconsistencies are starting to make you look bad. Maybe it is time to become a bit more logical about your anti liberal rants.





Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., BP and Royal Dutch Shell all produced less crude last year than in the prior year. They're struggling to tap new sources of oil fast enough in an environment where big finds are rarer and costlier to exploit. Potential fields lie deep under the seabed, or in shale rock formations that require expensive technology to crack open. When Exxon can't find oil fast enough, it is stuck with existing fields where production is declining.



MD wrote:gee, that investment makes their 300 million algae research effort look pretty pitiful.
Their LNG tanker fleet pales in comparison too.
If EM is really queued up to dump $150b into oil development I guarantee there will be a return on that investment. That's their whole bankroll.

vtsnowedin wrote:MD wrote:gee, that investment makes their 300 million algae research effort look pretty pitiful.
Their LNG tanker fleet pales in comparison too.
If EM is really queued up to dump $150b into oil development I guarantee there will be a return on that investment. That's their whole bankroll.
Well Duh!! An experienced corporation chooses to invest in more crude oil exploration vs. R&D in algae oil. Perhaps they have made the wrong bet, but do you want to bet against them?

MD wrote:gee, that investment makes their 300 million algae research effort look pretty pitiful.
Their LNG tanker fleet pales in comparison too.
If EM is really queued up to dump $150b into oil development I guarantee there will be a return on that investment. That's their whole bankroll.


dissident wrote:I am not so sure the board of Exxon is composed of genius material. They just keep doing what they did before and hope it produces the same result.
vaseline2008 wrote:Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., BP and Royal Dutch Shell all produced less crude last year than in the prior year.



prajeshbhat wrote:Well, they don't have to do anything. With the oil-prices continuously rising and everything.
Take a look.


This was from some EIA or IEA report, can't find the original, but quoted here.By the year 2030, the world needs to invest approximately 30 trillion USD to meet global energy demand.




dissident wrote:It's too good to be true. This picture cannot be extrapolated into the future past a couple of years.


Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests