• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UPDATE 2-U.S. EIA cuts recoverable Monterey shale oil estimate by 96 pct

Gimmesometruth said:
Um, the point is, the oil corp always has an interest in news that spurs speculative investment.

You are too invested in your original post to admit to your error......which is why you continue to move your discussion to other subjects.

You lost the point, you are wrong......and we are done.

Tah-tah.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Of course they have an interest in speculative reporting. However, falsely inflated estimates are counter-productive to what the oil companies are trying to accomplish with the reports.
 
apdst said:
If you sell at a loss, you can deduct the loss. Simple.
Click to expand...

That isn't depreciating a loss in capital due to market fluctuations. Drought drives the market price up but the yield down- a farmer can have a high market price but low yield and thus a loss which is a deduction in income, not a depreciation of capital. Capital isn't 'lost' in the production process like say fertilizer, diesel, or cost of a custom cutter.

You can depreciate a tractor to zero value but if you sell that tractor later you have to claim the sale price as income.

You're using terms in a very sloppy manner and combining deduction with depreciation. Depreciation is a deduction however it isn't dependent on market forces.
 
notquiteright said:
That isn't depreciating a loss in capital due to market fluctuations. Drought drives the market price up but the yield down- a farmer can have a high market price but low yield and thus a loss which is a deduction in income, not a depreciation of capital. Capital isn't 'lost' in the production process like say fertilizer, diesel, or cost of a custom cutter.

You can depreciate a tractor to zero value but if you sell that tractor later you have to claim the sale price as income.

You're using terms in a very sloppy manner and combining deduction with depreciation. Depreciation is a deduction however it isn't dependent on market forces.
Click to expand...

He has to claim the sell of the tractor if tractor sells for more than it's worth.
 
apdst said:
It's all about what's in it for who?

The oil companies have zero to gain by pressuring the EIA to over-estimate the size of the reserve.

On the other hand, politicos within the government have everything to gain.

It's simple deduction.
Click to expand...

DA60 said:
Oil companies have no reason to pump up the figures?

Are you serious?

The more oil they say is down there, the less worried people get about developing alternatives and the more money/grants they can extract from the government to get the oil.

It is in BOTH the oil companies AND the gov't's interest to provide 'good' numbers.
Click to expand...

Lets not forget that if a company has the rights to an oil field with 2 billion barrels of recoverable oil, it is sitting on a huge asset. It could sell those assets for a significant sum. If the amount of recoverable oil drops then the dollar value in assets drops as well
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Lets not forget that if a company has the rights to an oil field with 2 billion barrels of recoverable oil, it is sitting on a huge asset. It could sell those assets for a significant sum. If the amount of recoverable oil drops then the dollar value in assets drops as well
Click to expand...

That is where the term, "provable reserves", comes into use. No one is going to buy a 2 billion barrel field just because someone said, "oh yeah! There's 2 billion barrels there". Before that deal is struck, the buyer will want to see proof that the oil is there and that it's producable.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, the point is, the oil corp always has an interest in news that spurs speculative investment.

You are too invested in your original post to admit to your error......which is why you continue to move your discussion to other subjects.

You lost the point, you are wrong......and we are done.

Tah-tah.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

If a play is getting hot the last thing an operator would want is a lot of publicity. They would much rather buy up the acreage quietly at low prices...
 
drz-400 said:
If a play is getting hot the last thing an operator would want is a lot of publicity. They would much rather buy up the acreage quietly at low prices...
Click to expand...
These days, it is leases, and Occidental Oil Corp, held many of the leases. If the shale reserves could have been productive, they would have attracted investors (they are publicly traded) on good news. Instead, they are selling their CA interest.

"Oil driller Occidental, one of the major leaseholders in the state, earlier this year put its California business up for sale in part due to lagging oil production.

"Not all resources are created equal," Sieminski said. "It turned out that it is harder to crack the reservoirs and get the oil flowing from the Monterey" than from Bakken or the south Texas formation of Eagle Ford."​

UPDATE 2-U.S. EIA cuts recoverable Monterey shale oil estimate by 96 pct | Reuters
 
Gimmesometruth said:
These days, it is leases, and Occidental Oil Corp, held many of the leases. If the shale reserves could have been productive, they would have attracted investors (they are publicly traded) on good news. Instead, they are selling their CA interest.

"Oil driller Occidental, one of the major leaseholders in the state, earlier this year put its California business up for sale in part due to lagging oil production.

"Not all resources are created equal," Sieminski said. "It turned out that it is harder to crack the reservoirs and get the oil flowing from the Monterey" than from Bakken or the south Texas formation of Eagle Ford."​

UPDATE 2-U.S. EIA cuts recoverable Monterey shale oil estimate by 96 pct | Reuters
Click to expand...

Yes, i know how it works. If Occidental "cracked" the monteray they would prefer not to have it on front page news until they were able to buy up all of their prospective acreage. Everyone in the industry knew the Monteray was not yet productive. There is a lot of oil, its a question of how to get it out.

Great example of what i am talking about, Brigham Exploration in Nodak, they finally figured out how to make the Bakken productive about 4 years ago by copying EOG. Know what they did? Quickly shut in the well so no one could see the massive gas flare and quitely bought up as much acreage as possible before word got out...
 
drz-400 said:
Yes, i know how it works. If Occidental "cracked" the monteray they would prefer not to have it on front page news until they were able to buy up all of their prospective acreage. Everyone in the industry knew the Monteray was not yet productive. There is a lot of oil, its a question of how to get it out.

Great example of what i am talking about, Brigham Exploration in Nodak, they finally figured out how to make the Bakken productive about 4 years ago by copying EOG. Know what they did? Quickly shut in the well so no one could see the massive gas flare and quitely bought up as much acreage as possible before word got out...
Click to expand...
Since we are not talking about "acreage", but leases, your argument doesn't hold....nor does it negate the fact that even after your "acreage" is purchased, the news of the find would attract investors to whoever controls the acreage or lease.
 
reinoe said:
Was The Fukushima Disaster just a bi-partisan plot to convince the nation of the dangers of nuclear power?

Anyway, I'd be in favor of investing more heavily in Solar and Wind. I'm not ruling out Nuclear power either, but I don't think this country has the maturity to handle the long term perspective required with Nuclear Power.
Click to expand...

Fukushima killed zero people. While it was certainly a major problem that requires a lot of ongoing efforts to clean, up, we need to keep a little perspective here.
 
reinoe said:
Was The Fukushima Disaster just a bi-partisan plot to convince the nation of the dangers of nuclear power?

Anyway, I'd be in favor of investing more heavily in Solar and Wind. I'm not ruling out Nuclear power either, but I don't think this country has the maturity to handle the long term perspective required with Nuclear Power.
Click to expand...

Really, we've only been using it for decades. Just because the Japanese screwed up by putting an nuke plant in an obviously poor location without the proper safeguards, doesn't mean everyone else should stop using it. The plant was old and outdated, and planned for a shutdown anyway.
 
DA60 said:
'May 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) on Wednesday cut its estimate of recoverable oil in California's Monterey shale by 96 percent, casting doubt on what was once thought to be America's next major energy play.

In what could be welcome news for environmentalists and a potentially bad omen for oil drillers, such as Venoco Inc, with large leases in the region, the EIA slashed its forecast of technically recoverable reserves, citing production difficulties from initial wells.

The reserves were downgraded by 96 percent, from 13.7 billion barrels estimated by a government-funded report in 2011, to just 600 million barrels, the EIA said. A detailed report is expected to be released next month.'

UPDATE 2-U.S. EIA cuts recoverable Monterey shale oil estimate by 96 pct | Reuters
Click to expand...

So fracking in a known high risk earthquake area... sounds really stupid.
 
Deuce said:
Fukushima killed zero people.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. It has killed hundreds if not thousands of people. The people sent in at the start were volunteers and they have died and are dying as we speak of radiation exposure.
 
American said:
Really, we've only been using it for decades. Just because the Japanese screwed up by putting an nuke plant in an obviously poor location without the proper safeguards, doesn't mean everyone else should stop using it. The plant was old and outdated, and planned for a shutdown anyway.
Click to expand...
Yes and looking at our infrastructure right now you'll excuse me if I don't believe for a second that our nuclear facilities are all up to date and that we would maintain them.:roll:
 
reinoe said:
Yes and looking at our infrastructure right now you'll excuse me if I don't believe for a second that our nuclear facilities are all up to date and that we would maintain them.:roll:
Click to expand...

They aren't paid for by tax dollars. Or did you forget that's how our country works. Tell me how many accidents we've had.
 
Helix said:
i'm in favor of it, especially thorium, if that tech pans out.
Click to expand...

Thorium Salt reactors are definitely an interesting alternative. They appear to meet pretty much everyone's requirements.
 
DA60 said:
Oil companies have no reason to pump up the figures?

Are you serious?

The more oil they say is down there, the less worried people get about developing alternatives and the more money/grants they can extract from the government to get the oil.

It is in BOTH the oil companies AND the gov't's interest to provide 'good' numbers.
Click to expand...

If there were any gamesmanship at play here it would be the more obvious deflation of estimates to create a false scarcity.
 
jmotivator said:
Thorium Salt reactors are definitely an interesting alternative. They appear to meet pretty much everyone's requirements.
Click to expand...

yep, on that we certainly agree, though i admit that my knowledge on this particular technology is somewhat limited. seems like a great alternative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom