A deal to acquire the Venezuelan assets of BP (NYSE:BP) by TNK-BP, a joint venture between them and a group of Russian billionaires, has been confirmed today by the energy ministers of both countries.
The memorandum was signed between the two nations when Hugo Chavez visited Russia.
Terms of the deal weren't revealed (although in the past it was estimated to be valued at about $1 billion) but the specific assets were, as German Khan, one of the wealthy Russian's with a stake in the venture revealed, include the acquisition of three oil fields: "16.7 percent of Petromanagas, 40 percent of Petroperija and 26.6 percent of Bouqeron," said Khan.
TNK-BP's goal is to expand outside of Russia and ultimately become the largest independent producer based in the country.
BP is selling the asset as part of their goal to raise $30 billion to pay for unfolding liabilities related to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Showing posts with label Oil Gulf of Mexico. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oil Gulf of Mexico. Show all posts
Friday, October 15, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP) Not Issuing New Shares to Raise Capital
BP is resisting issuing new shares in the company to raise capital, looking rather to bank credit lines and selling of assets as the major strategy to provide more liquidity as needed.
This probably comes from the inevitable dilution of share which would drive down the value of the stock. BP has to be very much aware of the dissatisfaction in the company by shareholders who were counting on the dividend the company normally pays out, which was discontinued at this time.
So to dilute the shares after losing half its value and ending the dividend for now, wouldn't be the best of strategies for oil giant, probably the reason they aren't going that route.
BP has also lined up a number of banks to provide them will immediate loans, with each bank committing about $1 billion. That brings the total available to about $9 billion, although other banks are reportedly going to offer a similar amount as well.
Much of this is not only to pay for claims and liabilities related to the Gulf, but at the same time set up a defensive strategy to combat potential takeover attempts by unwelcome suitors.
This probably comes from the inevitable dilution of share which would drive down the value of the stock. BP has to be very much aware of the dissatisfaction in the company by shareholders who were counting on the dividend the company normally pays out, which was discontinued at this time.
So to dilute the shares after losing half its value and ending the dividend for now, wouldn't be the best of strategies for oil giant, probably the reason they aren't going that route.
BP has also lined up a number of banks to provide them will immediate loans, with each bank committing about $1 billion. That brings the total available to about $9 billion, although other banks are reportedly going to offer a similar amount as well.
Much of this is not only to pay for claims and liabilities related to the Gulf, but at the same time set up a defensive strategy to combat potential takeover attempts by unwelcome suitors.
Friday, June 11, 2010
BP's (NYSE:BP) Liability $80 Billion?
Reports that government scientists have asserted the amount of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico on a daily basis could be as high as 40,000 barrels, would put BP's (NYSE:BP) liability at a staggering $80 billion.
Of course these numbers can't in any way be trusted, as government scientists are no different than saying a pimps' prostitute. They both are for sale and do what is told them.
Even the numbers thrown out by the scientists are suspect, as first they hit out at BP for understating the amount of oil leaking into the Gulf at the early stages of the accident, then they now say the spill is from 20,000 to 40,000 barrels a day.
Which is it government scientists? Is it 20,000 or 40,000? The numbers are so far apart as not to be considered credible in any way.
What these so-called scientists are saying in doing is attempting to paint BP in a bad light, but at the same time cover their own worthless rear-ends by using these types of numbers.
Even the 20,000 a day is in line with the original estimates by the government, which were from 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day. So how does that remain the same on the lower end, while expanding to outrageous numbers on the higher end. Seems like they aren't scientists, but government mouthpieces doing the bidding of their masters.
If those numbers were even close to being accurate, BP would probably be finished as a company, and more than likely the reason they're even seriously being thrown out there is in order to extort more money from BP, or portray them in the light of needing to be taken over, which is what some Democrats have been drooling over to do.
It could also be an attempt to arrest the growing discontent of the British people over how BP has been treated by Obama and his administration, which have brought statesmanship to a new low by their street talk and methodology, rather than respectful dialogue.
Democrats and Obama know they're being watched closely on the financial side of things here, as they've already devastated the country and its financial future in 18 months.
Now they would want nothing better to get control of BP and extract billions out of them in order to keep a distance from spending more in an attempt to take care of the circumstances surrounding the oil spill in the Gulf.
I'm primarily referring to the ridiculous notion that BP should pay for the decision Obama made to impose a 6-month moratorium on oil drilling, which will devastate the region which is so reliant on oil to move their economies.
Obama and the Democrats are unbelievable trying to make BP pay for the unemployment benefits of those Obama has put out of work.
Why this is such an outrage is the oil rigs affected by the moratorium have already been inspected and cleared, and there's simply no reason to keep them from resuming operations.
The whole idea of the moratorium was to take a breather and be sure there weren't other possibilities of an accident happening. Now that that has happened with 29 of the 33 oil rigs still in the Gulf, there is no reason to resume operations and get people working again.
Of course these numbers can't in any way be trusted, as government scientists are no different than saying a pimps' prostitute. They both are for sale and do what is told them.
Even the numbers thrown out by the scientists are suspect, as first they hit out at BP for understating the amount of oil leaking into the Gulf at the early stages of the accident, then they now say the spill is from 20,000 to 40,000 barrels a day.
Which is it government scientists? Is it 20,000 or 40,000? The numbers are so far apart as not to be considered credible in any way.
What these so-called scientists are saying in doing is attempting to paint BP in a bad light, but at the same time cover their own worthless rear-ends by using these types of numbers.
Even the 20,000 a day is in line with the original estimates by the government, which were from 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day. So how does that remain the same on the lower end, while expanding to outrageous numbers on the higher end. Seems like they aren't scientists, but government mouthpieces doing the bidding of their masters.
If those numbers were even close to being accurate, BP would probably be finished as a company, and more than likely the reason they're even seriously being thrown out there is in order to extort more money from BP, or portray them in the light of needing to be taken over, which is what some Democrats have been drooling over to do.
It could also be an attempt to arrest the growing discontent of the British people over how BP has been treated by Obama and his administration, which have brought statesmanship to a new low by their street talk and methodology, rather than respectful dialogue.
Democrats and Obama know they're being watched closely on the financial side of things here, as they've already devastated the country and its financial future in 18 months.
Now they would want nothing better to get control of BP and extract billions out of them in order to keep a distance from spending more in an attempt to take care of the circumstances surrounding the oil spill in the Gulf.
I'm primarily referring to the ridiculous notion that BP should pay for the decision Obama made to impose a 6-month moratorium on oil drilling, which will devastate the region which is so reliant on oil to move their economies.
Obama and the Democrats are unbelievable trying to make BP pay for the unemployment benefits of those Obama has put out of work.
Why this is such an outrage is the oil rigs affected by the moratorium have already been inspected and cleared, and there's simply no reason to keep them from resuming operations.
The whole idea of the moratorium was to take a breather and be sure there weren't other possibilities of an accident happening. Now that that has happened with 29 of the 33 oil rigs still in the Gulf, there is no reason to resume operations and get people working again.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
BP (NYSE:BP) and Measuring Oil Spill
Some writers are making a big deal about the reasoning behind why BP (NYSE:BP) allegedly won't measure the oil spill from the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig which killed 11 workers and caused the leak from the ocean bottom.
One the obvious reasons, and legitimate ones in my opinion, is it really does take away from the efforts of trying to plug up the oil leak, which is the top priority.
It is made to sound like there's some secret reasoning behind it, but it's highly doubtful.
What possible reason would there to be to estimate the exact amount of oil being leaked into the ocean? It will do nothing to make it stop, and it's highly distracting, at minimum.
One goof thinks it's a conspiracy to hide the hidden effects of the dispersants used to control the oil, calling it an environmental risk. Who cares?
The writer talks about the potential of a "grave risk to sea life." Like the oil isn't a risk.
The idea that they are exchanging one risk for another concerning marine life is so incredibly stupid, that it's hard to understand how an article like that would even be allowed to be put in any publication.
It is tortured logic to come to this conclusion, as you'll see in this excerpt from the article:
"If the oil-eating bacteria are in fact devouring oxygen at a harmful rate, the dispersants are most likely contributing to this process. One of the reasons for breaking the oil into smaller droplets is to facilitate oil-eating bacteria's access to it. If these bacteria are also consuming the oxygen that marine ecosystems need to survive, the dispersant effort could prove counterproductive.
"But it could also change the way people remember this spill -- and how much accountability they ultimately expect for it. Once the leak is plugged and the oil is dispersed throughout the Gulf, who's to say for certain whether BP's blown well gushed 5,000 or 80,000 barrels of oil a day?"
The Atlantic needs to get this writer off her meds, or whatever it is causing her to make these assumptions.
Look at the way it's said:
"If the oil-eating bacteria are in fact devouring oxygen..."
"...the dispersants are most likely contributing to this process."
"If these bacteria are also consuming the oxygen..."
"...the dispersant effort could prove counterproductive."
"But it could also change the way people remember this spill..."
"...who's to say for certain whether BP's blown well gushed 5,000 or 80,000 barrels of oil a day?"
This writer refuses to make a statement or draw a conclusion, all the coward does is say "if," "most likely," "could," etc.
In other words, these are little disingenuous tactics used to create doubt about the company and process, while covering her rear-end by not being willing to come right out and say it.
Read it carefully and you'll see that what is really being said is she prefers to have some dubious scientists come in and "measure" the amount of oil in the ocean, while probably already having made the conclusion about it like this inept writer, who would rather have the Gulf awash in oil than stop the leak from continuing to rush into the area.
Why? She's obviously an environmental kook who is outraged over the theory that there could be a loss of oxygen which could result in the marine ecosystems not surviving.
She would rather see oil everywhere than the dispersants sprayed to help combat the oil. It's the dispersants that offend this troubled person, and that's a ridiculous and reckless idea for someone to even be thinking about when it's one of the few things that are really helping.
One the obvious reasons, and legitimate ones in my opinion, is it really does take away from the efforts of trying to plug up the oil leak, which is the top priority.
It is made to sound like there's some secret reasoning behind it, but it's highly doubtful.
What possible reason would there to be to estimate the exact amount of oil being leaked into the ocean? It will do nothing to make it stop, and it's highly distracting, at minimum.
One goof thinks it's a conspiracy to hide the hidden effects of the dispersants used to control the oil, calling it an environmental risk. Who cares?
The writer talks about the potential of a "grave risk to sea life." Like the oil isn't a risk.
The idea that they are exchanging one risk for another concerning marine life is so incredibly stupid, that it's hard to understand how an article like that would even be allowed to be put in any publication.
It is tortured logic to come to this conclusion, as you'll see in this excerpt from the article:
"If the oil-eating bacteria are in fact devouring oxygen at a harmful rate, the dispersants are most likely contributing to this process. One of the reasons for breaking the oil into smaller droplets is to facilitate oil-eating bacteria's access to it. If these bacteria are also consuming the oxygen that marine ecosystems need to survive, the dispersant effort could prove counterproductive.
"But it could also change the way people remember this spill -- and how much accountability they ultimately expect for it. Once the leak is plugged and the oil is dispersed throughout the Gulf, who's to say for certain whether BP's blown well gushed 5,000 or 80,000 barrels of oil a day?"
The Atlantic needs to get this writer off her meds, or whatever it is causing her to make these assumptions.
Look at the way it's said:
"If the oil-eating bacteria are in fact devouring oxygen..."
"...the dispersants are most likely contributing to this process."
"If these bacteria are also consuming the oxygen..."
"...the dispersant effort could prove counterproductive."
"But it could also change the way people remember this spill..."
"...who's to say for certain whether BP's blown well gushed 5,000 or 80,000 barrels of oil a day?"
This writer refuses to make a statement or draw a conclusion, all the coward does is say "if," "most likely," "could," etc.
In other words, these are little disingenuous tactics used to create doubt about the company and process, while covering her rear-end by not being willing to come right out and say it.
Read it carefully and you'll see that what is really being said is she prefers to have some dubious scientists come in and "measure" the amount of oil in the ocean, while probably already having made the conclusion about it like this inept writer, who would rather have the Gulf awash in oil than stop the leak from continuing to rush into the area.
Why? She's obviously an environmental kook who is outraged over the theory that there could be a loss of oxygen which could result in the marine ecosystems not surviving.
She would rather see oil everywhere than the dispersants sprayed to help combat the oil. It's the dispersants that offend this troubled person, and that's a ridiculous and reckless idea for someone to even be thinking about when it's one of the few things that are really helping.
Was Gulf Oil Spill an Inside Job?
Could the catastrophic Gulf of Mexico oil rig explosion be part of a larger scheme to “reform” the energy industry, just as the Obama administration has “reformed” healthcare, banking and automobile manufacturers? Worse, is “cap and trade”—possibly the worst legislation ever penned—the ultimate endgame behind this spill, which they are now capitalizing upon?
The first red flag receiving virtually no attention is that Halliburton (NYSE:HAL) (of Dick Cheney fame) had finished a cementing process only 20 hours prior to Deepwater Horizon erupting in flames. Lawsuits have already been filed, with Reuters reporting on April 29, “Halliburton improperly and negligently performed its job in cementing the well, increasing the pressure at the well and contributing to the fire, explosion and resulting oil spill.”
As a result, a high-pressure pocket of deep oil 30,000 feet beneath the ocean floor erupted with the force of a gigantic, non-stop fire hose. A surviving worker on the rig, John Kersey, said it sounded “like a war zone” as alarms were triggered, electricity shorted out, and flames shot 300 feet into the air. The inferno-like blaze could be seen 35 miles away.
CONNECTIONS
Suspicions arise when an ownership paper trail is followed. Halliburton subcontracted for a company named Transocean, which leased and operated Deepwater Horizon for British Petroleum (NYSE:BP). Transocean is a subsidiary of Sonat Inc., which merged with the El Paso Corporation (NYSE:EP) in March 1999. Douglas Foshee, EPC’s chairman, president and CEO, was hired away from Halliburton. The interim CEO prior to his arrival was Ronald Kuehn of Sonat.
Another previous CEO of EPC was William Wise, who served with Cheney on the influential National Petroleum Council. EPC was the largest single contributor from Texas for Bush-Cheney’s 2000 presidential campaign. Similarly, Wise helped Cheney raise $8 million for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
These incestuous relationships aren’t limited to the GOP. Barack Obama and his Chicago crime network expect to reap handsome profits in the future. Step No. 1 in this process began with Chicago’s Joyce Foundation, which had John Ayers (brother of terrorist William Ayers) on its board. Another board member was then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
The Joyce Foundation created the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which in turn received financing from Franklin Raines, former head of Fannie Mae, a prime mover in our recent housing market collapse and economic recession.
Of vital importance is CCX’s role as the sole “carbon trading system” under Obama’s cap-and-trade bill. CCX would act as a quasi-stock market to buy and sell energy emission allowances. Richard Sandor, CCX founder, estimated a $10 trillion potential for this easily manipulated market.
BILDERBERG INFLUENCE
With that much money at stake, a host of high rollers enter the picture. Namely, one company with a huge ownership interest in CCX is Generation Investment Management (GIM), whose chairman is former Vice President Al Gore. Four other GIM founders include Henry Paulson, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris—all of Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS). Not surprisingly, Goldman Sachs purchased 10 percent of CCX in 2006.
One other individual on CCX’s board of directors is the controversial Maurice Strong, a New Age occultist with direct ties to the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds.
Since Goldman Sachs has now become part of the equation, we next need to examine its non-executive chairman, Peter Sutherland, who formerly filled the same role at BP, the company at the center of this debacle. As the third-largest global energy company in existence, BP has four direct links to Bilderberg: former CEO John Brown, chairman Carl Henric Svanberg, chief executive Tony Hayward and Sutherland. In addition, Sutherland formerly served as the World Trade Organization’s director general, EU commissioner and chairman of the European Trilateral Commission.
This background information is important because the top recipient of BP donations during the 2008 presidential campaign was Obama. Similarly, the second highest political action committee contributing to a political candidate in 2008 was Goldman Sachs. The beneficiary of their largess: Obama.
Undoubtedly, one of Obama’s primary big government missions is to enact cap-and-trade legislation. To implement this plan, influential decision makers such as Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Paul Volcker and Timothy Geithner are all members of the financial mafia. In this vein, David Mayer Rothschild stressed that last year’s Copenhagen environmental summit was “an attempt to establish a world government.”
Likewise, AFP editor Jim Tucker reported on March 24, 2007 that General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, said political leaders should “address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide.”
The Rothschilds have spent huge amounts of money promoting the global warming hoax. Goldman Sachs is obviously an arm of their empire, whereas BP is among a host of companies in Nathan Rothschild’s portfolio.
A TEAM EFFORT
Considering the nature of these prominent players, one factor binds them all together. Cap and trade, via the CCX, will tax carbon-dioxide emissions and generate trillions in revenue. Only a month ago, however, this legislation sat dead in the water with virtually no support from Congress or the American public. But now, with an environmental catastrophe at hand, could it be resurrected and enacted in a way that mirrored President Clinton’s counter-terrorism bill following the OKC bombing?
Ironically, big oil and global bankers are two of the most ardent supporters of climate change legislation. In this sense, seeming adversaries such as “environmentalist” Gore and BP are on the same team; as are Cheney’s Halliburton, Goldman Sachs and Obama’s CCX. It should also be noted that prior to their demise, the corrupt Enron Corporation lavished huge amounts of praise on cap and trade legislation.
Lastly, if gasoline prices surge this summer due to the Gulf of Mexico spill, one obvious benefactor will be the new green-friendly “smart cars” owned by GM (Government Motors).
As AFP goes to press, all containment efforts have failed as millions of gallons of oil continue to gush into the Gulf of Mexico on a weekly basis.
By Victor Thorn
Credit: American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
The first red flag receiving virtually no attention is that Halliburton (NYSE:HAL) (of Dick Cheney fame) had finished a cementing process only 20 hours prior to Deepwater Horizon erupting in flames. Lawsuits have already been filed, with Reuters reporting on April 29, “Halliburton improperly and negligently performed its job in cementing the well, increasing the pressure at the well and contributing to the fire, explosion and resulting oil spill.”
As a result, a high-pressure pocket of deep oil 30,000 feet beneath the ocean floor erupted with the force of a gigantic, non-stop fire hose. A surviving worker on the rig, John Kersey, said it sounded “like a war zone” as alarms were triggered, electricity shorted out, and flames shot 300 feet into the air. The inferno-like blaze could be seen 35 miles away.
CONNECTIONS
Suspicions arise when an ownership paper trail is followed. Halliburton subcontracted for a company named Transocean, which leased and operated Deepwater Horizon for British Petroleum (NYSE:BP). Transocean is a subsidiary of Sonat Inc., which merged with the El Paso Corporation (NYSE:EP) in March 1999. Douglas Foshee, EPC’s chairman, president and CEO, was hired away from Halliburton. The interim CEO prior to his arrival was Ronald Kuehn of Sonat.
Another previous CEO of EPC was William Wise, who served with Cheney on the influential National Petroleum Council. EPC was the largest single contributor from Texas for Bush-Cheney’s 2000 presidential campaign. Similarly, Wise helped Cheney raise $8 million for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
These incestuous relationships aren’t limited to the GOP. Barack Obama and his Chicago crime network expect to reap handsome profits in the future. Step No. 1 in this process began with Chicago’s Joyce Foundation, which had John Ayers (brother of terrorist William Ayers) on its board. Another board member was then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
The Joyce Foundation created the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which in turn received financing from Franklin Raines, former head of Fannie Mae, a prime mover in our recent housing market collapse and economic recession.
Of vital importance is CCX’s role as the sole “carbon trading system” under Obama’s cap-and-trade bill. CCX would act as a quasi-stock market to buy and sell energy emission allowances. Richard Sandor, CCX founder, estimated a $10 trillion potential for this easily manipulated market.
BILDERBERG INFLUENCE
With that much money at stake, a host of high rollers enter the picture. Namely, one company with a huge ownership interest in CCX is Generation Investment Management (GIM), whose chairman is former Vice President Al Gore. Four other GIM founders include Henry Paulson, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris—all of Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS). Not surprisingly, Goldman Sachs purchased 10 percent of CCX in 2006.
One other individual on CCX’s board of directors is the controversial Maurice Strong, a New Age occultist with direct ties to the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds.
Since Goldman Sachs has now become part of the equation, we next need to examine its non-executive chairman, Peter Sutherland, who formerly filled the same role at BP, the company at the center of this debacle. As the third-largest global energy company in existence, BP has four direct links to Bilderberg: former CEO John Brown, chairman Carl Henric Svanberg, chief executive Tony Hayward and Sutherland. In addition, Sutherland formerly served as the World Trade Organization’s director general, EU commissioner and chairman of the European Trilateral Commission.
This background information is important because the top recipient of BP donations during the 2008 presidential campaign was Obama. Similarly, the second highest political action committee contributing to a political candidate in 2008 was Goldman Sachs. The beneficiary of their largess: Obama.
Undoubtedly, one of Obama’s primary big government missions is to enact cap-and-trade legislation. To implement this plan, influential decision makers such as Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Paul Volcker and Timothy Geithner are all members of the financial mafia. In this vein, David Mayer Rothschild stressed that last year’s Copenhagen environmental summit was “an attempt to establish a world government.”
Likewise, AFP editor Jim Tucker reported on March 24, 2007 that General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, said political leaders should “address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide.”
The Rothschilds have spent huge amounts of money promoting the global warming hoax. Goldman Sachs is obviously an arm of their empire, whereas BP is among a host of companies in Nathan Rothschild’s portfolio.
A TEAM EFFORT
Considering the nature of these prominent players, one factor binds them all together. Cap and trade, via the CCX, will tax carbon-dioxide emissions and generate trillions in revenue. Only a month ago, however, this legislation sat dead in the water with virtually no support from Congress or the American public. But now, with an environmental catastrophe at hand, could it be resurrected and enacted in a way that mirrored President Clinton’s counter-terrorism bill following the OKC bombing?
Ironically, big oil and global bankers are two of the most ardent supporters of climate change legislation. In this sense, seeming adversaries such as “environmentalist” Gore and BP are on the same team; as are Cheney’s Halliburton, Goldman Sachs and Obama’s CCX. It should also be noted that prior to their demise, the corrupt Enron Corporation lavished huge amounts of praise on cap and trade legislation.
Lastly, if gasoline prices surge this summer due to the Gulf of Mexico spill, one obvious benefactor will be the new green-friendly “smart cars” owned by GM (Government Motors).
As AFP goes to press, all containment efforts have failed as millions of gallons of oil continue to gush into the Gulf of Mexico on a weekly basis.
By Victor Thorn
Credit: American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
Monday, September 7, 2009
Everyone Drilling Oil but U.S.?
Oil Exploration and Drilling
It's extraordinary that countries around the world are drilling and pursuing oil, with the exception of off the coasts of America and within its borders as well, where billion's of barrels are sitting there because of the far left environmental activists pressuring Democrats, who refuse to ignore them and open up our land and coasts to the billions of barrels of oil already known to be available to us, along with the potentially huge, unknown reserves there for the taking.
I'm not saying American Oil Companies aren't drilling, just that they're not drilling off the coasts of the U.S., which would be very lucrative and helpful to the American economy and American people.
Bizarrely, the Obama administration continues to resist drilling off the shores of the U.S. while oil companies from other nations cash in, like BP from the UK did recently in the Gulf, where they found billions of barrels of oil recently, although it'll take time to know how much it is overall. They are also going to drill a second place in attempts to tap into even more reserves, while the U.S. oil policy is in shambles because of political special interests.
Even though Congress repealed the restrictions on 85 percent of American waters, the Department of Interior under the Obama administration hasn't issued one lease to an oil company for drilling and exploration.
Foolishly, the result will be continued dependence on foreign oil and whims, while we sit on potential resources that could help ween us from this foreign oil dependence in a big way.
Interestingly, the discovery of the Tiber oil by BP in the gulf recently has led some to believe it is a big piece of evidence that strengthens the abiotic theory of oil's origins.
The abiotic theory of oil asserts that any type of hydrocarbon, which includes gas and oil, is the result of natural chemical processes deep in the earth which rise through the fissures of the planet and is usually deposited in sedimentary layers beneath the surface.
What is hypocritical in all this is under the Obama administration, the U.S.Export-Import bank loaned $2 billion to Brazil's Petrobras for furthering their offshore drilling efforts. This gives support to billionaire George Soros, an avid Obama supporter, who owns a stake in Petrobras, which is a state-owned oil and gas company.
Oil Exploration and Drilling
It's extraordinary that countries around the world are drilling and pursuing oil, with the exception of off the coasts of America and within its borders as well, where billion's of barrels are sitting there because of the far left environmental activists pressuring Democrats, who refuse to ignore them and open up our land and coasts to the billions of barrels of oil already known to be available to us, along with the potentially huge, unknown reserves there for the taking.
I'm not saying American Oil Companies aren't drilling, just that they're not drilling off the coasts of the U.S., which would be very lucrative and helpful to the American economy and American people.
Bizarrely, the Obama administration continues to resist drilling off the shores of the U.S. while oil companies from other nations cash in, like BP from the UK did recently in the Gulf, where they found billions of barrels of oil recently, although it'll take time to know how much it is overall. They are also going to drill a second place in attempts to tap into even more reserves, while the U.S. oil policy is in shambles because of political special interests.
Even though Congress repealed the restrictions on 85 percent of American waters, the Department of Interior under the Obama administration hasn't issued one lease to an oil company for drilling and exploration.
Foolishly, the result will be continued dependence on foreign oil and whims, while we sit on potential resources that could help ween us from this foreign oil dependence in a big way.
Interestingly, the discovery of the Tiber oil by BP in the gulf recently has led some to believe it is a big piece of evidence that strengthens the abiotic theory of oil's origins.
The abiotic theory of oil asserts that any type of hydrocarbon, which includes gas and oil, is the result of natural chemical processes deep in the earth which rise through the fissures of the planet and is usually deposited in sedimentary layers beneath the surface.
What is hypocritical in all this is under the Obama administration, the U.S.Export-Import bank loaned $2 billion to Brazil's Petrobras for furthering their offshore drilling efforts. This gives support to billionaire George Soros, an avid Obama supporter, who owns a stake in Petrobras, which is a state-owned oil and gas company.
Oil Exploration and Drilling
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Appellate Court Slaps Down Federal Government on "Anadarko Petroleum" Oil Royalties
With the U.S. government increasingly gravitating toward socialism, it was a welcome sign to see them slowed down by the decision of a federal appellate court, which affirmed the government had no right to dig their greedy hands into the revenues generated by oil company Anadarko Petroleum.
In a case that has been closely watched by the industry and big-government advocates, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans confirmed a lower-court ruling which said the government had no authority to collect the fossil-fuel royalties, which could end up totaling up to $10 billion.
Government sychophant Shane Wolfe, a spokesman for the Interior Department, said in his talking points, "If the court's interpretation of Congress's action in 1995 is correct, certain leaseholders will be allowed to produce massive amounts of oil and gas without paying royalties to the United States without regard to the price of oil and gas -- perhaps amounting to one of the biggest giveaways of federal resources by Congress in modern history."
This is nothing more than another socialist statement. When the oil companies are doing lousy, no one cares, as soon as they start making some money, the money wants to come in and steal it and redistribute it to worthless projects or unproductive people. That is a path of destruction that whenever is interrupted, we need to be thankful for.
Look at the manipulative language given to Wolfe to repeat: "... certain leaseholders will be allowed to produce massive amounts of oil and gas without paying royalties to the United States without regard to the price of oil and gas."
All of it is an effort to make an articial barrier between people and business, in order to make people believe the government is looking out for them. An old tactic for sure, but one that works when people are afraid and looking for someone to blame, along with a savior, which the government is glad to step in as.
Look at the phrase "without regard to the price of oil and gas." It's socialist to the core.
The U.S. government, which has caused the current economic crisis through faulty attempts to run the economy, now think they're able to make any type of healthy decision on energy prices in regard to the diminishing free market?
Why this is so important is when oil companies are doing good, they can than take the revenue and do more explorations, improve operations, invest in better technology, etc. They can also set aside money for the inevitable slow times like the current economic climate, where they can survive until things pick up again.
What the government is attempting to do is syphon off the productive periods of the company in the name of "fairness," so they can use it for their endless projects and activities that do nothing to add to the national or individual wealth.
As far as the specific issue in the court case, it surrounded the terms of the lease, which were connected to oil and gas production levels, rather than price thresholds, which the government has asserted.
The court saw the obvious duplicity of the government, which agreed to the terms of the law directly connected to production outputs, and not the price threshold the government wants to arbitrarily impose on the companies drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
To show you how far the government will go to manipulate things, in 2004, according to the inept federal Minerals Management Service, the government stood to lose royalty payments as high as $60 billion.
Later on those figures were adjusted to between $6 billion to $10 billion. How does one miss estimates by 6 to 10 times over the upper reality of the numbers? Only a governmental agency could do that. Everyone else would be thrown in jail for fudging the numbers.
The so-called Government Accountability Office confirmed the lower estimate was the more accurate of the two projections.
Why throw out obvious bogus numbers? It's the old strategy of putting false information out to the public which will create an outrage based on false assertions. Even, as in this case, when the government has to backtrack, the damage is already done.
This should never have been a court case, as the terms of the lease, as the courts have confirmed, are completely being met. Idiotic lawmakers, who are looking for ways to steal more money from the public, instigated this by pressuring the court case to go forward, even wasting more of the taxpayers money.
Anothe reason government needs to stay out of the free market.
In a case that has been closely watched by the industry and big-government advocates, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans confirmed a lower-court ruling which said the government had no authority to collect the fossil-fuel royalties, which could end up totaling up to $10 billion.
Government sychophant Shane Wolfe, a spokesman for the Interior Department, said in his talking points, "If the court's interpretation of Congress's action in 1995 is correct, certain leaseholders will be allowed to produce massive amounts of oil and gas without paying royalties to the United States without regard to the price of oil and gas -- perhaps amounting to one of the biggest giveaways of federal resources by Congress in modern history."
This is nothing more than another socialist statement. When the oil companies are doing lousy, no one cares, as soon as they start making some money, the money wants to come in and steal it and redistribute it to worthless projects or unproductive people. That is a path of destruction that whenever is interrupted, we need to be thankful for.
Look at the manipulative language given to Wolfe to repeat: "... certain leaseholders will be allowed to produce massive amounts of oil and gas without paying royalties to the United States without regard to the price of oil and gas."
All of it is an effort to make an articial barrier between people and business, in order to make people believe the government is looking out for them. An old tactic for sure, but one that works when people are afraid and looking for someone to blame, along with a savior, which the government is glad to step in as.
Look at the phrase "without regard to the price of oil and gas." It's socialist to the core.
The U.S. government, which has caused the current economic crisis through faulty attempts to run the economy, now think they're able to make any type of healthy decision on energy prices in regard to the diminishing free market?
Why this is so important is when oil companies are doing good, they can than take the revenue and do more explorations, improve operations, invest in better technology, etc. They can also set aside money for the inevitable slow times like the current economic climate, where they can survive until things pick up again.
What the government is attempting to do is syphon off the productive periods of the company in the name of "fairness," so they can use it for their endless projects and activities that do nothing to add to the national or individual wealth.
As far as the specific issue in the court case, it surrounded the terms of the lease, which were connected to oil and gas production levels, rather than price thresholds, which the government has asserted.
The court saw the obvious duplicity of the government, which agreed to the terms of the law directly connected to production outputs, and not the price threshold the government wants to arbitrarily impose on the companies drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
To show you how far the government will go to manipulate things, in 2004, according to the inept federal Minerals Management Service, the government stood to lose royalty payments as high as $60 billion.
Later on those figures were adjusted to between $6 billion to $10 billion. How does one miss estimates by 6 to 10 times over the upper reality of the numbers? Only a governmental agency could do that. Everyone else would be thrown in jail for fudging the numbers.
The so-called Government Accountability Office confirmed the lower estimate was the more accurate of the two projections.
Why throw out obvious bogus numbers? It's the old strategy of putting false information out to the public which will create an outrage based on false assertions. Even, as in this case, when the government has to backtrack, the damage is already done.
This should never have been a court case, as the terms of the lease, as the courts have confirmed, are completely being met. Idiotic lawmakers, who are looking for ways to steal more money from the public, instigated this by pressuring the court case to go forward, even wasting more of the taxpayers money.
Anothe reason government needs to stay out of the free market.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Oil Drops on Bailout Uncertainty
Oil settled about $1 lower on Friday as the unknown concerning the bailout package continues to paralyze investors across the board.
Crude in the U.S. settled at $106.89 a barrel, while Brent crude in London slipped by $1.06 to $103.54.
With demand for oil slackening because of consumers tightening their wallets, oil would probably be much lower if the hurricanes hadn't disrupted production in the Gulf of Mexico. That has helped support the commodity in otherwise difficult circumstances.
Shell Oil said it will take about two more weeks to get all its offshore fields in production again. Shell is the largest oil producer in the Gulf.
About 25 percent of U.S. crude production is in the Gulf of Mexico.
Crude in the U.S. settled at $106.89 a barrel, while Brent crude in London slipped by $1.06 to $103.54.
With demand for oil slackening because of consumers tightening their wallets, oil would probably be much lower if the hurricanes hadn't disrupted production in the Gulf of Mexico. That has helped support the commodity in otherwise difficult circumstances.
Shell Oil said it will take about two more weeks to get all its offshore fields in production again. Shell is the largest oil producer in the Gulf.
About 25 percent of U.S. crude production is in the Gulf of Mexico.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)