Big Oil Seen Running Takeover `Race to the Altar' After Exxon's XTO Deal

Dec 15, 2009 Full story: www.bloomberg.com 16

Exxon Mobil Corp. a s $30 billion purchase of XTO Energy Inc., the largest U.S. petroleum takeover since 2006, may signal a wave of acquisitions as major producers seek to tap growing gas and oil output from shale formations.

Full Story
crazy oxothongy

Nha Trang, Vietnam

#1 Dec 15, 2009
bill_mr. u r think of Jay rocket?:-oooooooo
Keep driving

United States

#2 Dec 15, 2009
Shale oil makes up some of the largest oil deposits in the world. As soon as the price of oil goes up enough to make shale oil profitable on a large scale these types of oil fields will pay off big time. Meanwhile, they can turn a small profit on smaller output levels.
Look for the Democrats to continue to thwart all types of new oil exploration citing their bogus claims of environmental risks.
skeptic

Bigfoot, TX

#3 Dec 15, 2009
Keep driving wrote:
Shale oil makes up some of the largest oil deposits in the world. As soon as the price of oil goes up enough to make shale oil profitable on a large scale these types of oil fields will pay off big time. Meanwhile, they can turn a small profit on smaller output levels.
Look for the Democrats to continue to thwart all types of new oil exploration citing their bogus claims of environmental risks.
There may be confusion here between shale oil (kerogen in shale) and conventional oil and gas trapped in shale (“tight sands”) rather than limestone as most crude and natural gas produced now are.

The industry has known of that conventional oil and gas since the 1950’s…the formation is known as the Baaken, the name of the farmer who owned the property where it was first discovered…but production became practical only with the development of horizontal drilling. Even WITH horizontal drilling and present fracturing techniques for “breaking up” the shale far less of the oil and gas there can be recovered and costs are MUCH greater. The industry is searching for better fracturing techniques…those we have were developed for deposits in limestone.

A reference to the US Geological Survey of the Baaken made in 2008 can be found at:
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp...

XTO has rights to a lot of acreage in the Baaken but also had a huge debt.

ExxonMobil might be more interested in natural gas than in oil there.

“bless the USA”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#4 Dec 15, 2009
skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
There may be confusion here between shale oil (kerogen in shale) and conventional oil and gas trapped in shale (“tight sands”) rather than limestone as most crude and natural gas produced now are.
The industry has known of that conventional oil and gas since the 1950’s…the formation is known as the Baaken, the name of the farmer who owned the property where it was first discovered…but production became practical only with the development of horizontal drilling. Even WITH horizontal drilling and present fracturing techniques for “breaking up” the shale far less of the oil and gas there can be recovered and costs are MUCH greater. The industry is searching for better fracturing techniques…those we have were developed for deposits in limestone.
A reference to the US Geological Survey of the Baaken made in 2008 can be found at:
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp...
XTO has rights to a lot of acreage in the Baaken but also had a huge debt.
ExxonMobil might be more interested in natural gas than in oil there.
The USA has huge deposits of shale oil, coal, and natural gas. WTF are we worrying about oil in the Middle East for? Soon enough the Middle East will take potable water and grain in payment for oil anyhow.
skeptic

Pleasanton, TX

#5 Dec 15, 2009
Kenhunt wrote:
<quoted text>The USA has huge deposits of shale oil, coal, and natural gas. WTF are we worrying about oil in the Middle East for? Soon enough the Middle East will take potable water and grain in payment for oil anyhow.
We do NOT have adequate supplies of natural gas. Ships have been built to transport it as a liquid at 250 degrees below zero from places that have more and more and larger ones are under construction today. Do you truly believe the oil giants would be spending billions on those ships and facilities for liquefaction and regassification of LNG if they could merely produce it here?

Converting ANY of those other resources to motor fuels and the other products we get from oil and natural gas costs more than purchasing crude at even $100/ Barrel and each has negative ecological consequences.

“bless the USA”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#6 Dec 16, 2009
skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
We do NOT have adequate supplies of natural gas. Ships have been built to transport it as a liquid at 250 degrees below zero from places that have more and more and larger ones are under construction today. Do you truly believe the oil giants would be spending billions on those ships and facilities for liquefaction and regassification of LNG if they could merely produce it here?
Converting ANY of those other resources to motor fuels and the other products we get from oil and natural gas costs more than purchasing crude at even $100/ Barrel and each has negative ecological consequences.
Yes, we do. and we will. IMHO.

See http://www.newnaturalgas.org/ or http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/18/18gre... or http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_impc...

About 17% of US gas is imported, 83% locally including Alaska. 2/3 of out imported gas comes from Mexicao and Canada and most of the remaining third comes from Trinidad.

I can't explain why we import any at all, but could speculate. We actually EXPORT more than we import, particularly to our close ally, Japan. Maybe the transporters backhaul to the US from our import sources? maybe these imports are what are called "offsets" whereby we agree to buy from country A and that country in tern buys some other product from us; that is a common practice. Maybe there are not enough gas pipelines to certain port cities. I see those LNG tanks as great targets for terrorists.

I agree about the costs of alternative sources of energy from carbon, but demands will inevitably grow worldwide so that soon enough those sources will be needed at home. We are years behind other developed countries in using non-carbon sources and using energy more efficiently.

The quickest solution to that is to vote our ALL incumbent Democrats and Republicans, without exception, from now through 2012. The problems we have today cannot be solved by the people that created them.

“bless the USA”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#7 Dec 16, 2009
correction: About 17% of US gas is imported. The rest, 83%, is prodiced locally including Alaska. 2/3 of our imported gas comes from Mexico and Canada and most of the remaining third comes from Trinidad.
skeptic

San Antonio, TX

#8 Dec 16, 2009
Kenhunt wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we do. and we will. IMHO.
See http://www.newnaturalgas.org/ or http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/18/18gre... or http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_impc...
About 17% of US gas is imported, 83% locally including Alaska. 2/3 of out imported gas comes from Mexicao and Canada and most of the remaining third comes from Trinidad.
I can't explain why we import any at all, but could speculate. We actually EXPORT more than we import, particularly to our close ally, Japan. Maybe the transporters backhaul to the US from our import sources? maybe these imports are what are called "offsets" whereby we agree to buy from country A and that country in tern buys some other product from us; that is a common practice. Maybe there are not enough gas pipelines to certain port cities. I see those LNG tanks as great targets for terrorists.
I agree about the costs of alternative sources of energy from carbon, but demands will inevitably grow worldwide so that soon enough those sources will be needed at home. We are years behind other developed countries in using non-carbon sources and using energy more efficiently.
The quickest solution to that is to vote our ALL incumbent Democrats and Republicans, without exception, from now through 2012. The problems we have today cannot be solved by the people that created them.
You give statistics on the past. Perhaps you would be interested in forecasts of the future as discussed by experts in the Oil Drum at:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5247

The EIA DOES forecast a decrease in US LNG demand with most going elsewhere. See:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/gas.html

The location of existing and approved LNG terminals in the US can be found at the Internet site of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng/indus-act/...

Note that most are off the shores of Texas and Louisiana…places where natural gas IS plentiful. Most of the others are between Baltimore and Boston…where demands are greatest (and where pipeline construction is next to impossible). The industry and FERC recognize the possibility of terrorists’ attacks (or, possibly more likely, accidents) at these terminals so all are located far enough from shore that population would not suffer greatly.

Politics DOES raise its ugly head. Two instances;
(1) There is a need for a pipeline to transport Alaskan gas to the lower 48. Palin wants the state to control that line and ExxonMobil has agreed to support at least economic analysis. However BP and Chevron, who control most of the gas disagree and threaten to withhold supply. They prefer an industry-owned line connecting with existing lines in Alberta.
(2) Shell is researching a new and novel method of producing a “better” crude substitute without ecological problems of “mine, truck and retort” from oil shale. However the governor of CO and one of their Senators have succeeded in getting the leases they would need “off limits” and Shell is growing discouraged.

ExxonMobil apparently believes in the future of natural gas. They just paid a premium for XTO. XTO produces gas rather than oil from the Baaken. Wall Street disagrees and has punished XOM stock rather severely.

Nuclear, wind and solar are the primary “non-carbon” energy sources I am familiar with. The first two are, or at least may be, cost competitive with fossil fuels now but solar voltaic definitely is NOT. NASA probably leads the world in knowledge of solar. GE is the world’s leader in wind turbines and the US probably is second to none in nuclear KNOWLEDGE, but not in practical use.

“bless the USA”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#9 Dec 16, 2009
I wouldn't write off tidal energy either. And some ingenious stuff goes on inHawaii where they pump cold sea water from 1 1/2 miles down and use it for airconditioning highrises then return it.

I doubt Exxon made their decision lightly. FYI the USAF converts coal to jet fuel in S Dakpta today.
skeptic

San Antonio, TX

#10 Dec 17, 2009
Kenhunt wrote:
I wouldn't write off tidal energy either. And some ingenious stuff goes on inHawaii where they pump cold sea water from 1 1/2 miles down and use it for airconditioning highrises then return it.
I doubt Exxon made their decision lightly. FYI the USAF converts coal to jet fuel in S Dakpta today.
I’m familiar with the proposals for tidal energy from the Bay of Fundy (rather than from dams) but those are still “dreams” rather than proven.

Evaporative cooling is also used in the continental US…in AZ for example…but is wasteful of water.

Solar THERMAL can be economically competitive in places but solar VOLTAIC is FAR from it (in spite of Obama’s wish for “solar chips as cheap as paint”).

Coal has been converted to liquid fuels as long ago as the 1930’s. The Fischer-Tropsch plants in South Africa are at least that old and still operating. Hitler also converted coal to liquid fuels until he took Rumania and I G Farben had research agreements with (then) Esso prior to Hitler’s takeover. The primary drawbacks are costs and ecological. The EIA forecasts that gas to liquid (GTL) will prove to be “better” than coal to liquid (CTL). Russia, with the world’s largest gas reserves may well become the “Saudi of the future.” I seem to recall that a GTL plant was commercial in New Zealand but don’t know if it’s still operational.

Exxon does have a good “batting average” but has made poor investments in the past. The once believed they had an improvement that would make DC motors competitive with AC and purchased Reliance Electric to develop it. The more experienced researchers at Reliance showed them their idea was not commercially practical so they sold Reliance (actually a leveraged buyout by one of their executives) at a substantial loss. Another poor idea was completely unattended gas stations. Theft, vandalism and phony credit cards proved that scheme was a loser.

BP was the first to announce that they planned to sell every retail outlet they owned in the US (both company operated and leased)and ExxonMobil followed with a similar announcement less than a month later.
skeptic

San Antonio, TX

#11 Dec 17, 2009
Kenhunt wrote:
I wouldn't write off tidal energy either. And some ingenious stuff goes on inHawaii where they pump cold sea water from 1 1/2 miles down and use it for airconditioning highrises then return it.
I doubt Exxon made their decision lightly. FYI the USAF converts coal to jet fuel in S Dakpta today.
I just did a lookup on jet fuel by the Fischer-Tropsch process. The articles I found stated that Syntroleum, a small, publicly-traded company, produced 400,000 gallons of diesel and jet fuel, but near Tulsa, OK rather than one of the Dakotas and GTL rather than CTL, that it was tested and approved in blend used in a B-52 and probably will be certified for use in other larger aircraft.

The quantity produced, less than 10,000 barrels, is truly insignificant. Additionally most of the paraffins produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process are straight-chain. Though “better” in many ways than branched-chain paraffins, these have higher melting points and form waxes. That is already a problem in conventional diesel fuels for trucks operating in the northern parts of the US and I would GUESS would prove to be a problem in fighter aircraft.

And ALL FT processes also produce and release some methane…a more potent “greenhouse gas” than CO2.

“bless the USA”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#12 Dec 17, 2009
skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
I just did a lookup on jet fuel by the Fischer-Tropsch process. The articles I found stated that Syntroleum, a small, publicly-traded company, produced 400,000 gallons of diesel and jet fuel, but near Tulsa, OK rather than one of the Dakotas and GTL rather than CTL, that it was tested and approved in blend used in a B-52 and probably will be certified for use in other larger aircraft.
The quantity produced, less than 10,000 barrels, is truly insignificant. Additionally most of the paraffins produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process are straight-chain. Though “better” in many ways than branched-chain paraffins, these have higher melting points and form waxes. That is already a problem in conventional diesel fuels for trucks operating in the northern parts of the US and I would GUESS would prove to be a problem in fighter aircraft.
And ALL FT processes also produce and release some methane…a more potent “greenhouse gas” than CO2.
The refinery I refer to is not classified, as it is obvious to any observer, is in S Dakota, and produces fuel exclusively for the B2. You and I produce methane. We are pretty much on the same sheet of music regarding energy sources, but maybe for different main reasons. I do what I can personally to minimize my carbon footprint in my private life, live in a very efficient home, drive a hybrid, and keep farts to a minimum.

“bless the USA”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#13 Dec 17, 2009
skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Y
Nuclear, wind and solar are the primary “non-carbon” energy sources I am familiar with. The first two are, or at least may be, cost competitive with fossil fuels now but solar voltaic definitely is NOT. NASA probably leads the world in knowledge of solar. GE is the world’s leader in wind turbines and the US probably is second to none in nuclear KNOWLEDGE, but not in practical use.


Germany and Spain are closing out their nuclear plants and gradually using other generators now. Solar is in fact practical. For instance, the Hawaiian island of Lana'i is installing a huge solar farm to power the entire island. You see wind farms all over Europe. Deep ocean cold water sources do not waste water; they remove less water than dams do. Geothermal is also effective on small scales. The tidal experiments I referred to are off of Oregon: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008...
skeptic

San Antonio, TX

#14 Dec 17, 2009
Kenhunt wrote:
<quoted text>
Germany and Spain are closing out their nuclear plants and gradually using other generators now. Solar is in fact practical. For instance, the Hawaiian island of Lana'i is installing a huge solar farm to power the entire island. You see wind farms all over Europe. Deep ocean cold water sources do not waste water; they remove less water than dams do. Geothermal is also effective on small scales. The tidal experiments I referred to are off of Oregon: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008...
Kenhunt wrote:
<quoted text>
The refinery I refer to is not classified, as it is obvious to any observer, is in S Dakota, and produces fuel exclusively for the B2. You and I produce methane. We are pretty much on the same sheet of music regarding energy sources, but maybe for different main reasons. I do what I can personally to minimize my carbon footprint in my private life, live in a very efficient home, drive a hybrid, and keep farts to a minimum.
Yes we do produce a tiny amount of methane (males more than females) and quite a bit more CO2. Cattle produce even more methane and a few farmers are collecting it and using it to fuel gas engines.

I make no effort to “minimize my carbon footprint” but live in an older (inefficient) apartment and drive a 1968 Neon that has yet to see 25,000 miles. I DO use the heating and (even more) the air conditioning required to keep me comfortable.

I didn’t spot any reference to the FT facility you know of but certainly can’t say it doesn’t exist. However I doubt that all the fuel burned by the few B2 bombers we have comes even close to that burned by even the commercial airlines and MUCH less than the similar diesel fuel used by 18 wheelers. Costs have seldom been a prime consideration for the military. Larger aircraft can “solve” the wax problem by heating their fuel.

Nor am I familiar with the Hawaiian solar facility you mention. Is it solar voltaic or solar thermal? I believe those “wings” on the space station have an area of about 35,000 square feet and contain over 16,000 cells that convert sunlight to electricity yet the electricity generated would power fewer than 10 homes…even with the space station in sunlight nearly two-thirds of the time. How large is that Hawaiian facility and how is electricity stored for half the time…the most anyplace on earth is in sunlight.

You are free to live “green” but I won’t! Economics are more important to me.

“bless the USA”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#15 Dec 17, 2009
skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Yes we do produce a tiny amount of methane (males more than females) and quite a bit more CO2. Cattle produce even more methane and a few farmers are collecting it and using it to fuel gas engines.
I make no effort to “minimize my carbon footprint” but live in an older (inefficient) apartment and drive a 1968 Neon that has yet to see 25,000 miles. I DO use the heating and (even more) the air conditioning required to keep me comfortable.
I didn’t spot any reference to the FT facility you know of but certainly can’t say it doesn’t exist. However I doubt that all the fuel burned by the few B2 bombers we have comes even close to that burned by even the commercial airlines and MUCH less than the similar diesel fuel used by 18 wheelers. Costs have seldom been a prime consideration for the military. Larger aircraft can “solve” the wax problem by heating their fuel.
Nor am I familiar with the Hawaiian solar facility you mention. Is it solar voltaic or solar thermal? I believe those “wings” on the space station have an area of about 35,000 square feet and contain over 16,000 cells that convert sunlight to electricity yet the electricity generated would power fewer than 10 homes…even with the space station in sunlight nearly two-thirds of the time. How large is that Hawaiian facility and how is electricity stored for half the time…the most anyplace on earth is in sunlight.
You are free to live “green” but I won’t! Economics are more important to me.
lana'i has about 2600 residents. The solar generating system is not yet completed and I know few details of it, as I only visit there to enjoy paradise. I didn't know men produced more methane than women. I wonder why that is. That Neon is a collector's item! I can't remember the last time I saw one. Nice chatting with you. Have a happy new year!
skeptic

Bigfoot, TX

#16 Dec 17, 2009
Kenhunt wrote:
<quoted text>lana'i has about 2600 residents. The solar generating system is not yet completed and I know few details of it, as I only visit there to enjoy paradise. I didn't know men produced more methane than women. I wonder why that is. That Neon is a collector's item! I can't remember the last time I saw one. Nice chatting with you. Have a happy new year!
My typo…my Neon is a 1998 NOT 1968. I don’t think the Neon nameplate existed in ’68.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

EnCana Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
PetroChina, Encana strike $2.2-billion natural ... (Dec '12) Dec '12 Lamont Alberta de... 1
Chesapeake Energy in U.S. antitrust investigation (Aug '12) Aug '12 Dwight Baker 1
Big Oil and Gas industry writing down billions ... (Jul '12) Jul '12 e46M3 e60M5 2
U.S. probes Chesapeake, rival over possible col... (Jul '12) Jul '12 Black Jesus 12
Chesapeake Encana plotted to suppress land pric... (Jun '12) Jun '12 Tex 2
Traders turn to U.S. economic data as questions... (Apr '12) Apr '12 Dwight Baker 1
Wyoming town fears fracking poisoned their water (Feb '12) Feb '12 Dwight Baker 1

EnCana People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE