Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe Deerhunter on February 3, 2012 at 12:51

Aha.   I'll keep an eye on BOTH groups now.   Er, eyes....

Permalink Reply by Lerret on February 3, 2012 at 14:49

I think there is a problem with some of us scientists who assume that everyone thinks like we do. That is, by nature scientists are skeptics. They recognize bias (sometimes their own even) and they recognize that the only way to obtain a balanced view of the issues are via dialogue. The old Socratic methods if you will.  You arrive at the truth by analyzing the evidence and refuting that which cannot be proven until such time as more evidence sends you down another path.  Thus, the "Scientific Method" requires both pro and con on any subject.

Today in global warming, the science has been hijacked for "consensus". Science is not a beauty contest nor is it a poll of scientists.  The consensus in 1912 (100 years ago to the year) a meteorologist suggested that the continents drifted over the global - 99% of all scientists at the time scoffed at the idea.  Now plate tectonics is a simple proven fact. It took 50 years before deep ocean studies uncovered that irrefutable proofs.

Drilling a well is "proof" of a play only to an extent. The real proof is not whether it makes oil and gas but how much does it cost in relation to the total cost to lease, drill, produce and very very importantly for the brown dense how much will it cost to get rid of the salt water brines that can and likely will be produced.

What is alarming to me is the efforts made to silence critics of some of the shale plays...me included.  I am not a naysayer but recognizing the extreme risks that can be taken don't always pan out.  Of course, low gas prices are killing the economics of all deals.  Oil is still high.

The Woodford in E central OK as well as the Caney were early touted as the "next big thing" . Both have fell by the wayside. It can happen.  Arthur Berman has the right to criticize the economics. The Barnett is collapsing in a heap just as he predicted.  The government just sliced 66% off their estimate of gas in the Marcellus. All the gas plays have weakened.  Hundreds of thousands of acres have been leased that will never see the drill. Aubrey McClendon admitted that Chesapeake would not develop over 100,000 acres leased in Jackson, Woodruff, Monroe, etc. counties in Arkansas and those remain virtually untouched.  You cannot change the geology. Taking up all your toys and going home will not change the outcome.  But only the drill will prove or disprove the economics of these shale plays. 

The things I hear that I repeat here often come from some of my old classmates and collegues who have high positions in some of the major players. But the drill can still prove them wrong.  I think is fair to lay out the obstacles that must be overcome without thinking that was some conspiracy to damage mineral owners.  The truth is the armor we all need whether it tickles our ears or not.

Permalink Reply by DavidR on February 3, 2012 at 18:08

It is pretty natural for those who are intimately familiar with a business to be conservative in their expectations; these people have seen winners turn to losers and optimism become pessimism overnight.  In my business I've seen the same things: great expectations can become devastating failures in short order.  So, I appreciate that perspective.

At the same time, mineral owners are naturally optimistic because they have a lot at stake and it is fun to dream about the prospect of falling a-- backwards into a pile of unexpected money.  I appreciate that perspective as well.

Realism is a product of the middle ground.  I am optimistic because people who know more than anyone else here knows will have put a couple hundred million dollars into the play before we know the outcome.  There is a certain solace in knowing that.  Still, a few lousy wells could be the end of it.

The only reasonable approach is to not spend it 'til you've got it in your bank account.  In the meantime I think I'll monitor both discussion groups and try to balances the ups and downs to land somewhere in the middle. 

Permalink Reply by obed w odom on February 5, 2012 at 6:09

Apparently the initial LSBD group, supposedly now focusing on LSBD mineral owners, is even excluding some of those. I am certainly a mineral owner in the Brown Dense, but I get a message at the other group that an administrator has removed me from the group. Talk about a closed group!

Permalink Reply by Dry Hole on February 5, 2012 at 10:19

Keith/Skip/others

 In recognition of what has happened here I admire your efforts to SALVAGE the good people here and lead them in the right direction ----- I am shocked to learn that an organizer of a group can have total authoritarian RULE over his/her "FLOCK" ------  I suppose that if you could you would/will do something about this situation -------- not sure that this person has not created some Liable Issues for himself if he has truly destroyed/stolen/hoarded the hard work of others as well as made some lifelong enemies and tarnished his reputation among a rather small industry of revolving professionals and mineral owners.

 All this to say he will regret this emotional decision SOONER or later.

  Just the way I see it from the outside looking in and Truly SORRY this has happened

                                                                             Dry Hole / mineral owner

Permalink Reply by JHH on February 5, 2012 at 12:00

Hey GoshDarn...  i support your civility on these sites.... then i get a message i was suspended from the LDBD group.  what's going on?  jhh

Permalink Reply by GoshDarn on February 5, 2012 at 12:26

JHH:

It appears to me that maybe the person controlling that group membership doesn't have a true history of who the good guys are and who is on whose team.

Trying to define the middle ground by not taking sides and by not mudslinging, can even get a seriously pro landowner/mineral owner (like me), i.e., can even get a very serious fighter for the rights of the little person, small landowner (like me) -- well, sometimes my posts are misunderstood.  Gotta know the backstory history in order to know who's who on GHS.

In other words, without a solid historical perspective as to who is who, going back the 3 and 1/2 years I've been a member fighting the good-guy fight -- I can understand how such a mistake can be made.

Nevertheless, I was never that active in that particular subgroup anyway.  I pretty much know  what I need to know in regards to the LSBD as it effects my land and my family's land.  It was mostly just a sidebar of info.  Nothing that vital to my personal situation, per se.

So, for me, it's no big whoop.

I learned a long time ago to try to stay out of the name calling and personality dust-ups.  Yet sometimes, of course, I do step in and offer help when I think innocent folks are being taken advantage of.

Oh, well.  Like they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

It'll work itself out, JHH.  It always does on GHS.

 

Permalink Reply by JHH on February 5, 2012 at 12:00

I got suspended too!  What's happening?  jhh

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page