Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Using Parados reasoning, Farmer A leaves his land fallow, while his farm hands go unemployed. He lays them off because his existing hay fields are declining in hay production, but because Farmer A is now told what to do by a bunch of environmentalists, which tell him he cannot raise hay anymore because it might scare off the birds and other wildlife.

okie wrote:

Using Parados reasoning, Farmer A leaves his land fallow, while his farm hands go unemployed. He lays them off because his existing hay fields are declining in hay production, but because Farmer A is now told what to do by a bunch of environmentalists, which tell him he cannot raise hay anymore because it might scare off the birds and other wildlife.

You left out the part where Farmer A decided he can buy hay a lot cheaper than produce it himself so lays off his farm hands, borrows money and buys the hay from other farmers.

The oil companies have millions of acres of leases that have not been drilled on. No one is telling them they can't drill on those leases.

...

The oil companies have millions of acres of leases that have not been drilled on. No one is telling them they can't drill on those leases.

parados wrote:

...

The oil companies have millions of acres of leases that have not been drilled on. No one is telling them they can't drill on those leases.

The oil companies don't drill on those lands for which they have leases from the feds, because those lands are thought to lack sufficient crude oil reserves to justify the cost of drilling on those lands.

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:

...

The oil companies have millions of acres of leases that have not been drilled on. No one is telling them they can't drill on those leases.

The oil companies don't drill on those lands for which they have leases from the feds, because those lands are thought to lack sufficient crude oil reserves to justify the cost of drilling on those lands.

Sure, that's why the oil companies want to continue to pay the leases and don't want to give them up. Because there is no oil there.

Maybe you should pay attention to reality.

The oil companies have millions of acres of leases that have not been drilled on. No one is telling them they can't drill on those leases.

...
2. They are hoping that oil will go high enough to make it cost effective. (If it isn't effective at $140, what do you think it will need to go to?)
...

parados wrote:

...
2. They are hoping that oil will go high enough to make it cost effective. (If it isn't effective at $140, what do you think it will need to go to?)
...

It's primarily the quantity of crude oil in a crude oil reserve, not its current or forecast market price, that determines whether or not it is the better choice to justify the cost of drilling there for its crude oil.

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:

...
2. They are hoping that oil will go high enough to make it cost effective. (If it isn't effective at $140, what do you think it will need to go to?)
...

It's primarily the quantity of crude oil in a crude oil reserve, not its current or forecast market price, that determines whether or not it is the better choice to justify the cost of drilling there for its crude oil.

Ok.. so why would oil companies continue to pay for a lease where the quantity is not enough to justify drilling?

Sounds like a poor business decision to me. Let's pay rent for something that will never make us money because there isn't sufficient oil.

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:

...
2. They are hoping that oil will go high enough to make it cost effective. (If it isn't effective at $140, what do you think it will need to go to?)
...

It's primarily the quantity of crude oil in a crude oil reserve, not its current or forecast market price, that determines whether or not it is the better choice to justify the cost of drilling there for its crude oil.

Ok.. so why would oil companies continue to pay for a lease where the quantity is not enough to justify drilling?

Sounds like a poor business decision to me. Let's pay rent for something that will never make us money because there isn't sufficient oil.

Never is a long time!

Someday these current choices may become the better choices as better choices are exhausted. Also, the current cost of those leases of undrilled land are a trivial expense to the oil companies.

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:

...
2. They are hoping that oil will go high enough to make it cost effective. (If it isn't effective at $140, what do you think it will need to go to?)
...

It's primarily the quantity of crude oil in a crude oil reserve, not its current or forecast market price, that determines whether or not it is the better choice to justify the cost of drilling there for its crude oil.

Ok.. so why would oil companies continue to pay for a lease where the quantity is not enough to justify drilling?

Sounds like a poor business decision to me. Let's pay rent for something that will never make us money because there isn't sufficient oil.

Never is a long time!

Someday these current choices may become the better choices as better choices are exhausted. Also, the current cost of those leases of undrilled land are a trivial expense to the oil companies.

Oh, I get it, if they hold on to the leases for a couple of billion years there will be more oil there.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

178
Marine Biologist Daniel Botkin, President of the Center for the Study of the Environment and Professor Emeritus in the department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, authored the book Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century. Botkin also dampened global warming fears in 2007. "Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life -- ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary," Botkin wrote in an October 17, 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. "Case in point: This year's United Nations report on climate change and other documents say that 20%-30% of plant and animal species will be threatened with extinction in this century due to global warming -- a truly terrifying thought. Yet, during the past 2.5 million years, a period that scientists now know experienced climatic changes as rapid and as warm as modern climatological models suggest will happen to us, almost none of the millions of species on Earth went extinct," Botkin explained. "We're also warned that tropical diseases are going to spread, and that we can expect malaria and encephalitis epidemics. But scientific papers by Prof. Sarah Randolph of Oxford University show that temperature changes do not correlate well with changes in the distribution or frequency of these diseases; warming has not broadened their distribution and is highly unlikely to do so in the future, global warming or not," he wrote. "I'm not a naysayer. I'm a scientist who believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well. I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis," he added.

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:

...
2. They are hoping that oil will go high enough to make it cost effective. (If it isn't effective at $140, what do you think it will need to go to?)
...

It's primarily the quantity of crude oil in a crude oil reserve, not its current or forecast market price, that determines whether or not it is the better choice to justify the cost of drilling there for its crude oil.

Ok.. so why would oil companies continue to pay for a lease where the quantity is not enough to justify drilling?

Sounds like a poor business decision to me. Let's pay rent for something that will never make us money because there isn't sufficient oil.