so 'splain me this....

Onceler said:
Wordless emoticon responses are even better.
Click to expand...

They are indeed better than knee jerk reactions based on the source of the information rather than the content. It is especially funny given you don't ridicule the huffingtonpost or moveon.moron sources given which are far less reliable than the Journal.
 
Superfreak said:
They are indeed better than knee jerk reactions based on the source of the information rather than the content. It is especially funny given you don't ridicule the huffingtonpost or moveon.moron sources given which are far less reliable than the Journal.
Click to expand...
Not much of a point. None of them are exactly known for being objective.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see the word "partisan" anywhere in any of my posts.....and the question isn't limited to off shore drilling....Alaska is ready to permit drilling at ANWAR, and Colorado and Montana would love to see development of shale oil supplies there.....I believe Florida is also on record as being willing to permit more offshore drilling......

be that as it may, pretending this is merely a NIMBY issue, when there is a federal ban on the procedure is disingenuous.....
Click to expand...

CO will love the strip mining required to extract the shale oils.

Oil companies have also been sitting on oil leases they could have been drilliing.
 
Superfreak said:
They are indeed better than knee jerk reactions based on the source of the information rather than the content. It is especially funny given you don't ridicule the huffingtonpost or moveon.moron sources given which are far less reliable than the Journal.
Click to expand...


Far less reliable than the Journal op-ed page? Surely you jest. And really, I've never seen anyone link to anything at moveon.anything and HuffPo stuff is quite rare too.


Edit: And I'd note that the Journal op-ed page really nailed the facts on this one. Well, other than the amount of the loan and its purpose.
 
uscitizen said:
Oil companies have also been sitting on oil leases they could have been drilliing.
Click to expand...

false premise.....the way oil leases are distributed you may get assigned a parcel lease known to be unproductive, it's simply a lottery.....when oil was selling for $120 a barrel, if there was land with oil on it that could have been drilled, it would have been drilled.....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Beep! wrong answer. The States impacted. Many of which were conservative southern states controlled by Republicans.
Click to expand...

Beep, the right answer....unless you turned a deaf ear to the bleating of the liberal environmentalists.....document the objection of Florida, Mississippi and Alabama, which I believe are the only three states involved.....you can throw in Louisiana and Texas as well if you would like.....

in any event, you ignored the issue of Alaska, Montana, North Dakota.....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
false premise.....the way oil leases are distributed you may get assigned a parcel lease known to be unproductive, it's simply a lottery.....when oil was selling for $120 a barrel, if there was land with oil on it that could have been drilled, it would have been drilled.....
Click to expand...

Then why complain Alaska tried to give the lease to someone else since you had not drilled it while oil was $120?
 
uscitizen said:
Then why complain Alaska tried to give the lease to someone else since you had not drilled it while oil was $120?
Click to expand...
I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about....what lease did Alaska try to give to someone else?.....are you talking about the natural gas pipeline through Canada?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about....what lease did Alaska try to give to someone else?.....are you talking about the natural gas pipeline through Canada?......
Click to expand...

alaska tried to re let oil leases that had been held for 30 years or more and the holding oil company sued.

It is on here somewhere I posted on it a year or so ago.
 
sounds strange to me....personally, I doubt it happened....unless there are some highly unusual extenuating circumstances....perhaps it's a valuable lease and the holder is hoping that the feds will eventually let them drill on it.....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
false premise.....the way oil leases are distributed you may get assigned a parcel lease known to be unproductive, it's simply a lottery.....when oil was selling for $120 a barrel, if there was land with oil on it that could have been drilled, it would have been drilled.....
Click to expand...

Alaska got pissed and told them to drill or give up the leases, well, something like that...
 
Second hit I got on " Alaska oil lease" in google:

By Yereth Rosen

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - At least three oil companies have expressed interest in taking over Exxon Mobil Corp's long-languishing leases at its Point Thomson oil field in Alaska, if the state succeeds in taking them away from the world's largest oil company.

Alaska is fighting a legal battle to yank the properties from Exxon and its partners for allegedly violating the terms of the leases by not developing the field's estimated hundreds of millions of barrels of oil and 8 trillion to 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Three companies have told state officials they would like to buy and develop the leases, after the state formally takes back the properties, said Marty Rutherford, deputy commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

"There are three major companies that have been very interested. Two of them have been very aggressive about wanting to talk to the state," she told Reuters Thursday. "The bottom line is the state law doesn't allow people to warehouse our leases with no activity."

She declined to name the companies but said they have promised to develop more rapidly than Exxon has. "They're very clear that they would be much better partners in that unit, that ex-unit, as they put it," she said.

Alaska legislators have speculated that Shell Oil was among the companies interested in the leases.

Exxon and its partners -- BP Plc, Chevron Corp and ConocoPhillips -- have not drilled on the Point Thomson leases since 1982, but maintain that they have met their commitments and have turned to the Alaska court system to fight for their leases.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Oil/idUSN1936464220080619
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It's really not partisan poltical issue PiMP so much as it is the NIMBY mentality (Not In My Back Yard). The citizens of coastal states, both conservative and liberal, do not want off-shore oil drilling operations that would negatively impact the value of their property. I know this was a big issue in South Carolina and the predominantly conservative property owners on the coast do not want oil drilling on their off-shore water.
Click to expand...

Can I have a sip of your Koolade, Sonny?
 
Port Thompsen.....that's the site that was the center of the natural gas line law suit....there wasn't any drilling going on there because the oil companies were fighting over who was going to build the pipeline.....don't you recall?.....the one that Palin took credit for getting built?......

http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article149894.ece

In 2001, the state won a promise from ExxonMobil to drill several development wells to kick-start production of the liquids. But none of the wells were drilled and ExxonMobil announced in 2005 that there would be no further development until a massive natural gas pipeline was constructed on the North Slope.

That 2005 announcement led to a decision by the state Department of Natural Resources that ExxonMobil and its partners had defaulted on lease terms.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top