[doodlebug2]

Being new here, I have a question: I read today that there are 68 million acres of land leases by oil comps. not being used.
I take this is throughout the GOM, Alaska, and lower 48 states?
Is there a list of these leases by whom, where, etc.?

Why are they not being used? (most likely a dumb question)
Anyway, I just wanted to find more info about these leases as they seem to be in the news.

[TheDude]

Gulf of Mexico : Maps and Spatial Data has excellent charts showing leases, fields, pipelines, etc. A recommended article: The illusion of vast undeveloped U.S. oil resources | Energy Bulletin.

[doodlebug2]

thanks Dude

[Snik]

One of the best explanations I've seen: link

It's a ruse by the anti drilling bunch plain and simple. A misuse of raw numbers with no elaboration. Like an oil company would sit on potentially oil or gas productive leases with these prices? Please. Get real.

[Peleg]

My favorite Senator actually asked the oil majors that during a hearing just a few weeks ago. They were in no hurry to tell him that the leases were for exploratory purposes and in no way guaranteed to have economically useful grades or amounts of oil. In fact I think I heard them laughing under their breath when they finally had to say it.

[Plantagenet]

Why are they not being used? (most likely a dumb question) Anyway, I just wanted to find more info about these leases as they seem to be in the news.

Its not a dumb question....the dems in Congress are claiming they won't open up ANWR or new offshore areas in the lower 48 to new drilling because there are huge amounts of leased acreage that aren't being drilled now.

What gives?
It turns out that when the U.S. Government puts land up for lease, they divide it into multiple lease blocks.

Some of these are good --- seismic evidence may suggest they contain oil....but some are bad, and there is nothing about them to suggest they might have oil.

When the lease sale occurs, the oil majors will bid on the "good" parcels of land. In one auction I was involved in Chevron bid almost a billion dollars for a couple of parcels in the Santa Barbara Channel. Chevron has since built an offshore platform and is producing oil from their lease.

The oil majors usually ignore the adjacent "bad" parcels, and these are typically leased for a few dollars per acre by individuals or small companies. These people have no plans and no intention to develop this land. They lease it because they hope that at some time in the future one of the majors may reconsider and decide they want to drill on the "bad" parcel. Then they will re-lease to the major and make big bucks. This has happened a few times.

It is either extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest of the dems in Congress to demand that all the "bad" parcels of land already leased by the government should be producing oil and to then refuse to allow more leasing or exploration because older parcels that don't have any oil potential aren't producing oil.

[doodlebug2]

I have come to the conclusion that both sides on the offshore drilling and Anwar issue have points to consider. Also, I feel that this entirre issue is now become a total political issue that each
can use to get votes and blast each other. For example: dems can say to the US citizens that they are protecting the enviroment and fighting big Oil co. Reps can say it is the Dems fault gas is so high, if we are allowed to drill in Anwar/offshore et.al. oil would be cheap.That is my opinion and I feel each person falls on each side of this issue how they see and feel politically. My opinon also is that peak oil is a reality that the US must consider, but like GW it is now political. My 2 cents.

[Consensi]

Why are they not being used? (most likely a dumb question) Anyway, I just wanted to find more info about these leases as they seem to be in the news.

I found this: link

It is an Exxon Mobil public announcement in which it sums
up it proven and probable reserves at year end 2007.
Exxon reports:
" With 22.7 billion barrels of proved oil and gas reserves at year-end 2007, split about evenly between liquids and gas, ExxonMobil's reserves life at current production rates is more than 14 years. The portion of proved reserves already developed is 62 percent. "

They claim to have 22.7 Bbbls of known PROVEN reserves.
They also claim that they are only developing 62%. I guess
it means they can increase drilling to the other 38%.

Exxon goes on to say:
" The Corporation's total oil and gas resource base stands at 72 billion oil-equivalent barrels at year-end 2007. "

I would guess this means they think they probably have
72 Bbbls of reserves but KNOW they have 22.7 Bbbls.

I guess it is pure economics. Why start drilling all of it if they
know it would be better to wait.

[Peleg]

Gulf of Mexico : Maps and Spatial Data has excellent charts showing leases, fields, pipelines, etc. A recommended article: The illusion of vast undeveloped U.S. oil resources | Energy Bulletin.

This will seem a bit abstract but if you look a the graph on the energy bulletin you see that the Us maxed out at around 10mbpd back in 1970. The growth priced oil was all overseas and that is probably why we did not drink the last drop here trying to keep expanding supply. That would be a simple market based hypothesis. This conspiracy based Ghawar under Lake Ontario thing is whacko.

But notice, no country has ever consistently produced more than 10 mbpd. Given the amount of exploration that has been done and the basic political facts about nations we could probably draw a line at 15 mbpd and say based upon the data points it is unlikely that any nation will ever produce more than that. We only have three data points, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US, but that is by far most of the oil. You either get it from a jillion small fields or you get it from a few major ones. There is so much anecdotal evidence for peak in our era. Denial of peak oil now is like not believing in elephants and therefore refusing to visit Africa.

[threadbear]

One of the best explanations I've seen: link
It's a ruse by the anti drilling bunch plain and simple. A misuse of raw numbers with no elaboration. Like an oil company would sit on potentially oil or gas productive leases with these prices? Please. Get real.

As if!!! Like, who'd pull a stunt like that, just to make money?

[Peleg]

One of the best explanations I've seen: link
It's a ruse by the anti drilling bunch plain and simple. A misuse of raw numbers with no elaboration. Like an oil company would sit on potentially oil or gas productive leases with these prices? Please. Get real.

As if!!! Like, who'd pull a stunt like that, just to make money?

Maybe the government nationalized our oil fields years ago and allowed a fake peak so that we could consume other people's oil. They already war gamed this thing out and assumed that the patents for biofuels they alone control would leave America sitting on the last huge reserves in a world desparate for energy, they could then sell rights to use the biofules patents and the Rockefeller heir would be unanimously proclaimed Caesar's forever.

Prometheus Rising!

Maybe they have been experimenting on us all for the last 100 years to see how best to cull and develop a population of consumers who were just docile enough to keep working but ambitious enough to work hard?

Maybe the Benejesuit sisters have been culling the blood line since time immemorial to produce the ultimate human being?

Any of these things could be true but we need evidence.

Occam suggests that the oil companies are not drilling on those lands because they do not expect to find something that justifies the cost. I would not be surprised if some US supply was shut in on purpose at the height of the Cold War as a contingency. That would be Game Theory at work. Bid they shut in 300 billion barrels? Probably not.

[Ferretlover]

When things get as bad as they will, I hardly think that things like leases are going to matter. The government will take what it wants, under the auspices of "national security."