wirehairman Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 As far as Montanans are concerned....ok...I will take your word for it....you live there. I know oil companies have tons of leases in Montana.....they have every right to explore there if they want. Glad to know where you stand. I believe they have every bit as much right to explore along our coastlines as along the Rocky Mountain Front. And to head off the existing leases argument, 99.9% of them are in Easern Montana along the Dakota border in the rapidly expanding Williston Basin, and many have proven to be dry or completely uneconomical to develop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 The "Idle" oil field fallacy - from the WSJ OPINION I thought maybe you missed that part of the article because it was at the top of the page, bold, red, and in large type. But I see no reason why you shouldn't count as fact the opinions of Red Cavaney, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Petroleum Institute. Good link though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 24, 2008 Author Share Posted June 24, 2008 Hey atomoranic, just spin this: However, until the actual exploration is complete, a company does not know whether the lease will be productive. If, through exploration, it finds there is no oil or natural gas underneath a lease – or that there is not enough to justify the tremendous investment required to bring it to the surface – the company cuts its losses by moving on to more promising leases. Yet it continues to pay rent on the lease, atop a leasing bonus fee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 I thought maybe you missed that part of the article because it was at the top of the page, bold, red, and in large type. But I see no reason why you shouldn't count as fact the opinions of Red Cavaney, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Petroleum Institute. Good link though. It may be opinion, but it is probably a considerably more educated opinion on this subject than you will find on this message board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Hey atomoranic, just spin this: No need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 It may be opinion, but it is probably a considerably more educated opinion on this subject than you will find on this message board. by a guy whose salary and livelihood depends on drilling....no thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Glad to know where you stand. I believe they have every bit as much right to explore along our coastlines as along the Rocky Mountain Front. And to head off the existing leases argument, 99.9% of them are in Easern Montana along the Dakota border in the rapidly expanding Williston Basin, and many have proven to be dry or completely uneconomical to develop. I think you and I would agree. They do have the right to explore....only if the American people allow them too....those are our National Forests....those are our coastlines. There is a ton of oil where they currently have leases....the fact they don't want to pay to extract it...even with all the subsidies they receive...is not my problem....I guess they should develop an alternative before they become obsolete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codwagon Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 by a guy whose salary and livelihood depends on drilling....no thanks. Climatologist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 I think you and I would agree. They do have the right to explore....only if the American people allow them too....those are our National Forests....those are our coastlines. There is a ton of oil where they currently have leases....the fact they don't want to pay to extract it...even with all the subsidies they receive...is not my problem....I guess they should develop an alternative before they become obsolete. First I would want to have proof there is a ton of recoverable oil on these leases that are not active, and by active I mean either drilling or waiting for permits to clear. Regardless, it is not their problem, it is Joe Blow's problem, as they will not drill this oil until it makes economic sense, and it will not make economic sense unless the price of crude continues to rise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 (edited) Climatologist? American Petroleum Institute NO! he may be one for them...that is akin to a climatologist employed by Gore taken seriously....I mean seriously! Edited June 24, 2008 by TheShiznit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 First I would want to have proof there is a ton of recoverable oil on these leases that are not active, and by active I mean either drilling or waiting for permits to clear. Regardless, it is not their problem, it is Joe Blow's problem, as they will not drill this oil until it makes economic sense, and it will not make economic sense unless the price of crude continues to rise. that is my point exactly....even if they get to leases to drill....there is no assurances they will....since the past has shown they drill when prices are up and cut production when it benefits them. Again, I don't want to nationalize the oil/gas industry...but something so vital cannot simply be gamed the way it is now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 that is my point exactly....even if they get to leases to drill....there is no assurances they will....since the past has shown they drill when prices are up and cut production when it benefits them. Again, I don't want to nationalize the oil/gas industry...but something so vital cannot simply be gamed the way it is now! They like all other businesses are in business to make a profit. If the government were in control they would be in the business of employing as many people as possible to do as little as possible, and the cost of a gallon of gas would be just as much if not more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 They like all other businesses are in business to make a profit. If the government were in control they would be in the business of employing as many people as possible to do as little as possible, and the cost of a gallon of gas would be just as much if not more. maybe...but I am not wanting that. I am simply stating that something needs to be put in the leases to compel production. Whether the government has to drill test wells themselves or do geological surveys...I don't know. But simply grants leases to drill oil does not do anything at all....except line pockets of oil execs using my natural resources.....and possibly creating havoc in the environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 (edited) maybe...but I am not wanting that. I am simply stating that something needs to be put in the leases to compel production. Whether the government has to drill test wells themselves or do geological surveys...I don't know. But simply grants leases to drill oil does not do anything at all....except line pockets of oil execs using my natural resources.....and possibly creating havoc in the environment. What happens if the government drills test wells themselves and finds nothing or determines it is uneconomical to extract at this time? We just bailed the oil companies out on the tax payers dime. You keep assuming that oil companies are not exploring the leases they have. Those lease cost the oil companies big money, $2 billion in 2008 alone. Trust me, the oil companies are exploring them as fast as they can. It is impossible to hire a skilled laborer anywhere in Eastern Montana or the Western Dakotas because the drill rigs have snapped them all up. On top of that, there are many people more adament than I about drilling on the Rocky Mountain Front that have every drilling permit approved since 1990 tied up in litigation. Consequently, oil companies are paying millions for leases that they cannot drill on. Edited June 24, 2008 by wirehairman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 maybe...but I am not wanting that. I am simply stating that something needs to be put in the leases to compel production. Whether the government has to drill test wells themselves or do geological surveys...I don't know. But simply grants leases to drill oil does not do anything at all....except line pockets of oil execs using my natural resources.....and possibly creating havoc in the environment. The leases even when not utilized line the government coffers. You are wanting the government to basically tell companies how they have to operate. You want companies that make up part of your 401K to drill where it isn't profitable, so they make less profits. It won't lower the cost of a gallon of gas, as the cost is what it is, and if anything the increased cost of production will cause an increase at the pump. There well may be a time when the oil that is very hard to get to is profitable to drill for, but why do it, when they are currently paying a lease on land that gains them nothing. If anything, the more leases that are granted, the more money that is going to go to the government coffers anyway. If the oil is hard to get to, rather than having one well you may end up with multiple wells to make up for the lack of production, thus increasing the environmental risks. If the oil industry needs 10 wells to produce, they are going to drill 10 wells. What difference does it make where they are drilled? Hey if they want to help support the government by paying for leases they aren't using, isn't that to the governments good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 The leases even when not utilized line the government coffers. You are wanting the government to basically tell companies how they have to operate. You want companies that make up part of your 401K to drill where it isn't profitable, so they make less profits. It won't lower the cost of a gallon of gas, as the cost is what it is, and if anything the increased cost of production will cause an increase at the pump. There well may be a time when the oil that is very hard to get to is profitable to drill for, but why do it, when they are currently paying a lease on land that gains them nothing. If anything, the more leases that are granted, the more money that is going to go to the government coffers anyway. If the oil is hard to get to, rather than having one well you may end up with multiple wells to make up for the lack of production, thus increasing the environmental risks. If the oil industry needs 10 wells to produce, they are going to drill 10 wells. What difference does it make where they are drilled? Hey if they want to help support the government by paying for leases they aren't using, isn't that to the governments good? LOL...I am not going to continue this nonsense. I want the government to tell them how to run their business...that is funny. We will just agree to disagree. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 What happens if the government drills test wells themselves and finds nothing or determines it is uneconomical to extract at this time? We just bailed the oil companies out on the tax payers dime. You keep assuming that oil companies are not exploring the leases they have. Those lease cost the oil companies big money, $2 billion in 2008 alone. Trust me, the oil companies are exploring them as fast as they can. It is impossible to hire a skilled laborer anywhere in Eastern Montana or the Western Dakotas because the drill rigs have snapped them all up. On top of that, there are many people more adament than I about drilling on the Rocky Mountain Front that have every drilling permit approved since 1990 tied up in litigation. Consequently, oil companies are paying millions for leases that they cannot drill on. The only groups who have standing to bring suit against oil development are environmental groups...so people just can't tie up permits on leases that are in force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 The only groups who have standing to bring suit against oil development are environmental groups...so people just can't tie up permits on leases that are in force. As recommended to me, do a Google search and a little reading. I think you will find you're mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 You guys crack me up discussing this. I don't really give a furry flying f*ck about any of what y'all have been discussing. As a consumer, I say f*ck oil companies and the $40B in profits. And f*ck our government for allowing it to happen at the toll the high gas prices has taken on the economy, jobs, etc... I'm the last one to tell you how to "fix" things, but if the answer was nationalizing it, go for it. If the answer is drilling up all our own - then do that. I want cheaper prices - period. Sound naive? Maybe. I don't care. I want what I want. If you knew me, you'd know it's all about me all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 You guys crack me up discussing this. I don't really give a furry flying f*ck about any of what y'all have been discussing. As a consumer, I say f*ck oil companies and the $40B in profits. And f*ck our government for allowing it to happen at the toll the high gas prices has taken on the economy, jobs, etc... I'm the last one to tell you how to "fix" things, but if the answer was nationalizing it, go for it. If the answer is drilling up all our own - then do that. I want cheaper prices - period. Sound naive? Maybe. I don't care. I want what I want. If you knew me, you'd know it's all about me all the time. Well said!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 You guys crack me up discussing this. I don't really give a furry flying f*ck about any of what y'all have been discussing. As a consumer, I say f*ck oil companies and the $40B in profits. And f*ck our government for allowing it to happen at the toll the high gas prices has taken on the economy, jobs, etc... I'm the last one to tell you how to "fix" things, but if the answer was nationalizing it, go for it. If the answer is drilling up all our own - then do that. I want cheaper prices - period. Sound naive? Maybe. I don't care. I want what I want. If you knew me, you'd know it's all about me all the time. I can respect your position, but in the same grain, don't give a "furry flying f*ck" if you're paying $5 a gallon for gas if it means my granchildren can enjoy an unspoiled Rocky Mountain Front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I can respect your position, but in the same grain, don't give a "furry flying f*ck" if you're paying $5 a gallon for gas if it means my granchildren can enjoy an unspoiled Rocky Mountain Front. Fair enough - but I personally want people to have jobs and to be able to put food on their tables much more so than I want to look at a mountain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 (edited) As recommended to me, do a Google search and a little reading. I think you will find you're mistaken. No I will not find I am mistaken. Environmental groups are the ONLY groups with STANDING to bring a court case to challenge drilling on legal leases. Edited to add.....because to have standing you have to show you have incurred some sort of injury or loss....to be able to sue. Since most of the arguments against drilling are environmental.....and since drilling hasn't started, no harm can be proven....then environmental groups are the only people/groups who can bring suit in court because they are protecting an endangered sprecies or some sort of environmental hazard....this is why they are the only ones allowed to bring a suit. Edited June 25, 2008 by TheShiznit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 No I will not find I am mistaken. Environmental groups are the ONLY groups with STANDING to bring a court case to challenge drilling on legal leases. Edited to add.....because to have standing you have to show you have incurred some sort of injury or loss....to be able to sue. Since most of the arguments against drilling are environmental.....and since drilling hasn't started, no harm can be proven....then environmental groups are the only people/groups who can bring suit in court because they are protecting an endangered sprecies or some sort of environmental hazard....this is why they are the only ones allowed to bring a suit. Just out of curiosity, why couldn't the owner of a majestic lodge that overlooks the beautiful national park bring suit, as he will be damaged because they are going to make the view outside of his big chief suite not as attractive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Fair enough - but I personally want people to have jobs and to be able to put food on their tables much more so than I want to look at a mountain. Isn't worth the effort to try and have both? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.