Exxon Mobil: Biggest profit in history

Jim DeVito · Post by **Jim DeVito** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:27 pm

Click Here Please (CNN)

Nice. I say that we drill for more oil. I don't think they have enough.

All hail the all mighty barrel :lol:

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:07 pm

Jim DeVito wrote:Click Here Please (CNN)

Nice. I say that we drill for more oil. I don't think they have enough.

All hail the all mighty barrel

drill for more oil and the price of oil will drop... and so will their insane profits.... Supply and demand :wink:

David Anderson · Post by **David Anderson** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:36 am

"Drill for more oil and the price of oil will drop... and so will their insane profits.... Supply and demand."

Perfectly stated, Stephen.

This is why the oil companies are not drilling in the leased lands nor do they really want to drill offshore ("drill now" is just posturing).

They like it just the way it is.[/quote]

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:04 pm

David Anderson wrote:"Drill for more oil and the price of oil will drop... and so will their insane profits.... Supply and demand."

Perfectly stated, Stephen.

This is why the oil companies are not drilling in the leased lands nor do they really want to drill offshore ("drill now" is just posturing).

They like it just the way it is.

[/quote] Wow! 45,000 acres.. .. How about the other 574,000,000 acres that are off limit and ANWAR??

David Anderson · Post by **David Anderson** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:48 pm

Stephen -

I'm sure you know that 574,000,000 acres is 896,875 square miles which is roughly 3.3 times the size of Texas. Do you really think an area that size is drillable?

Imagine the hundreds billions of dollars the oil companies would have to spend just to set up the infrastructure to exploratory drill to that magnitude. If they aren't willing to drill in the acres currently under lease what makes you think they would conduct expensive exploratory drilling off shore?

Oh, that's right, they want to drill but don't want to pay for it. So, get a bumper sticker campaign going and donate to some members of Congress to have us taxpaying citizens pay for it. No thanks. (I worked on Capitol Hill when gulf state Senators tried, and often succeeded, in raiding U.S. taxpayer money to pay for private oil company exploratory drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.)

Status quo - oil companies win.

Get oil companies to pay for the drilling - oil companies lose.

Get taxpayers to pay for exploratory drilling which won't yield new domestic source for 5-8 years - oil companies win ... win, win, win, win.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:38 pm

David Anderson wrote:Stephen -

I'm sure you know that 574,000,000 acres is 896,875 square miles which is roughly 3.3 times the size of Texas. Do you really think an area that size is drillable?

Imagine the hundreds billions of dollars the oil companies would have to spend just to set up the infrastructure to exploratory drill to that magnitude. If they aren't willing to drill in the acres currently under lease what makes you think they would conduct expensive exploratory drilling off shore?

Oh, that's right, they want to drill but don't want to pay for it. So, get a bumper sticker campaign going and donate to some members of Congress to have us taxpaying citizens pay for it. No thanks. (I worked on Capitol Hill when gulf state Senators tried, and often succeeded, in raiding U.S. taxpayer money to pay for private oil company exploratory drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.)

Status quo - oil companies win.

Get oil companies to pay for the drilling - oil companies lose.

Get taxpayers to pay for exploratory drilling which won't yield new domestic source for 5-8 years - oil companies win ... win, win, win, win.

Imagine .. The oil companies want to drill where the oil is :shock:

PSSSSSSS They know where most of the oil is :wink:

and the oil is not on the 45,000 available acres... how crazy is that? :shock:

Jeff Endress · Post by **Jeff Endress** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:55 pm

Imagine .. The oil companies want to drill where the oil is PSSSSSSS They know where most of the oil is and the oil is not on the 45,000 available acres... how crazy is that?

Yeah!....

And how crazy would it be to lease acerage for drilling when you knew there wasn't any oil there?

Jeff

Jim DeVito · Post by **Jim DeVito** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:32 pm

Jeff Endress wrote:
Imagine .. The oil companies want to drill where the oil is PSSSSSSS They know where most of the oil is and the oil is not on the 45,000 available acres... how crazy is that?

Yeah!....

And how crazy would it be to lease acerage for drilling when you knew there wasn't any oil there?

Jeff

Jeff we talk about this already. It is pretty clear that the oil compaines were just leaseing all that land that had NO oil because it was next to the land that did have oil. Not because they are saveing that land to profit off of once all the worlds had dried up. They were are of course worried about slant-drilling operations springing up taping there wells. I mean does that not make sence. :wink:

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:15 pm

Jim DeVito wrote:
Jeff Endress wrote:
Imagine .. The oil companies want to drill where the oil is PSSSSSSS They know where most of the oil is and the oil is not on the 45,000 available acres... how crazy is that?

Yeah!....

And how crazy would it be to lease acerage for drilling when you knew there wasn't any oil there?

Jeff

Jeff we talk about this already. It is pretty clear that the oil compaines were just leaseing all that land that had NO oil because it was next to the land that did have oil. Not because they are saveing that land to profit off of once all the worlds had dried up. They were are of course worried about slant-drilling operations springing up taping there wells. I mean does that not make sence.

And where is most of that 45,000 acres??? how far offshore is it?

David Anderson · Post by **David Anderson** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:16 pm

Stephen -

Please try to at least read my posts before you start typing (a condescending reaction to your condescending "psssss").

I didn't say they didn't know where the oil is in general but, rather, that they don't want to pay for the "exploratory drilling" to get it out (it's all exploratory until they drill and oil actually comes out - it's not an exact science).

What I did say is that the oil companies want us to pay for it. You seem to be taking the bait.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:37 pm

Are you saying that revenues do not offset the expenses?

David Anderson · Post by **David Anderson** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:44 pm

I'm saying that the oil companies do not want to spend their revenues to cover the expenses associated with drilling in new areas.

They want taxpayers to pay for it and have better lobbyists than we do.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:03 pm

States that permit drilling receive a share of the leasing and royalty revenues???. Revenues from offshore drilling go the federal government, but states and the federal government split the royalty proceeds from onshore production. Is this not true??? The oil rigs are rented for about $600k a day. There are 5 big oil rig companies that are making a fortune right now.

ryan costa · Post by **ryan costa** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:15 pm

i've read somewhere it costs about 500,000 dollars a day to keep an offshore oil rig running when the floor of the ocean is over 1000 feet below sea level.

On the other hand the arab oil royal families, leaders of African oil exporting nations, and sultan of brunei are probably very inspirational to American oil chiefs. The big boys there frequently funnel most of their nations' oil revenue directly into their personal banking accounts. "we need to be more like Nigeria...to compete in the 22nd century...or something".

Exxon Mobil: Biggest profit in history

Exxon Mobil: Biggest profit in history

Re: Exxon Mobil: Biggest profit in history

oil