Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on May 7, 2010 at 13:17

Jay I am with you on domestic exploration but not at the cost of our Louisiana Coast. The states to the East of us, less and excepting western Mississippi have sand beaches. Every time a storm hits it erodes the sand on the beach, so they replace it with new sand that has been dredged from the sea floor. We have very little sand beaches in Louisiana but have the breading grounds in the marshes for most of the seafood that spawns in our marshes. Foster Campbell and Senator Joe McPherson have been trying to get bills past for years that would put money into our pocket here in Louisiana that would give us the money that would fix the wrongs that have been done to coastal Louisiana. I for one think that the gorilla has moved in with the buyout of XTO by Exxon. Things are fixin to move onshore into the Haynesville.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by intrepid on May 7, 2010 at 15:07

So you predict they will be drilling the Haynesville in offshore waters? Is that correct?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on May 7, 2010 at 15:21

I re-read and can't see where I said that the Haynesville would move offshore but it may be there at a greater depth than the tech we have may be able to drill at this point in time. I think that the boundarys of the Haynesville have been reined in due to the fact that a glut of gas will not help prices. If we have 15 Townships to the South that have potential of producing 100 million a day per well then it lessons the value of what they have already bought. I have heard of wells in Sabine Parish that smoke all Haynesville wells drilled so far.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on May 7, 2010 at 17:35

You would be hard pressed to find a more pro-business or pro-oil and gas landowner than myself, but this makes sense to me.

How can they cause damage not pay for it and not even compensate for the using the property.

The oil processing fee that I've heard mentioned makes sense also.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on May 8, 2010 at 2:33

The state would be in much better shape if Uncle Earl and Leander would have stayed out of the picture.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on May 8, 2010 at 2:38

Property taxes are high in Texas, but the offset is there is no state income tax.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on May 8, 2010 at 17:05

Jay,

I don't see why the would have to be mutually exclusive.

I see royalty payment and compensation for damages as two separate issues.

In the HS operators pay both royalties and compensate for any damage they cause.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on May 8, 2010 at 3:12

Bobi, I have felt for a very long time that the states (Louisiana, Texas, Mississipi) should receive half of the royalties collected on offshore oil & gas production in Federal waters. I feel more strongly in current times given that many other states will not allow drilling off their coasts. Measures (taxes, tolls, etc) have been tried in the past but it is time that Louisiana was compensated for the state's role in providing energy to the rest of the country.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DJG on May 8, 2010 at 14:26

Keep in mind that once the oil is captured by those offshore rigs that it actually goes onto the open market and it is not specifically earmarked for domestic U.S. consumption.

That said, the offshore production in our our coastal U.S. waters does not, necessarily, end up easing our dependance upon foreign prospects.

US govt will profit from the leases in federal waters, and there will be U.S. jobs on the rigs themselves, but it seems to me that if we - as a country - are the ones that are taking the ecological risk with U.S. offshore drilling then perhaps we should be demanding that our leaders make it conditional in those leases that all production from the wells off our our own Coasts be used exclusively to fuel our own domestic U.S. needs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on May 8, 2010 at 14:58

Interesting Idea but lets go a step further and say that inshore NG will be used here in the USA to offset the price of OPEC crude. At the crap prices that we see today this would be bound to raise the price to maybe a fair price. Once the price would get to a set level then we could export.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on May 8, 2010 at 18:01

DG, it is highly probable that all US oil production is consumed in the US.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DJG on May 8, 2010 at 20:42

Hey Les, I agree that our voracious appetite for crude does likely mean that market conditions are such that probably all of the current Gulf and US offshore production does get consumed domestically.

What happens down the line, however, when/if things turn around and market conditions change and it is - perhaps - more profitable for BP or Shell or anyone else to sell that crude to China or elsewhere?

Then again, maybe that scenario might never play out because it seems like every other country on the planet is already far ahead of us "trend-setters" here in the USA with respect to looking at using NG or other alternate fuel sources instead of oil to fuel their vehicles!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page