Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jesse Joyner on October 5, 2019 at 8:17

Thank you for posting this, Skip. I'm a little confused.

Is Aethon's: 

11100' LAN BOSSIER  TREAT 14-23 HC #003-ALT ENSIGN US DRLG #T135 DW 9/21/19 14 17038' GAS HOR OD 

The same as BHP Billiton's:

251156

HA RA SU91;JESTMA LLC 14-23 HC

003-ALT

B373

3608

08

00

014

16N

11W

07/12/2018

Also, SONRIS states there's a 9/13/19 FRAC for JESTMA 14-23 HC 004 ALT that I think actually happened last fall. I'm assuming that this must be a state data-entry typo on the year due to the tremendous lag time in the state being able to catch up with the well data postings. And the same is true for 14-23 HC 002 ALT, i.e., with a 9/11/19 FRAC, which I think must've happened in 2018 since the three new JESTMA wells which spudded in 14 16N 11W are already in pay, even though it took Billiton a quite long time to start coughing up the royalty payment to the mineral owners.             

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 5, 2019 at 8:40

Aethon Treat 14-23 is in 14-17-12, S/N 251711.  The BHP Jestma is in 14-16-11.  Both Jestma 14-23 #2 & #4 did not get approval for the frac until late in 2018, likely both fracks occurred sometime in 2019 as there is usually some weeks or month between the state approval and the actual completion.  The well file entry for frac has a report date but not a date for the actual frac operation.  So impossible to know for sure.  As to delayed royalty payment, happens a lot with all Haynesville operators.  The only thing you can do is send a certified demand letter for interest once there has been 180 days since the completion date. 

Permalink Reply by Jesse Joyner on October 5, 2019 at 8:56

Thank you, Skip. Much appreciated. That clarifies it.

Oh, in regards to those who continue to stick their heads in the sand as to the legitimacy of climate change, it reminds me of a history lesson from long ago. The Flat Earth folks knew for a fact that they were right. The Earth wasn't round, and the sun revolved around the Earth. They didn't want to believe hard science. They didn't want to believe the smart guys who were smarted than they were.

Thank goodness our military believes in hard science. We'd be in a pickle if we let those who disrespect the PhDs and the bright scientific minds build and aim our nukes.

Again, so many of us on GHS truly appreciate your time and effort to share your knowledge. Wonderful job.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 5, 2019 at 9:11

You're welcome, Jesse.  I think there will always be climate deniers although their ranks are thinning.  I am encouraged that the majority of Americans believe the science and now support action.

Permalink Reply by Royal Tyler on October 11, 2019 at 1:29

As a former president of Northern Louisiana mensa, I can assure you there are plenty of skeptics of climate science that are very, very intelligent. Being condescending towards them only makes the confrontations worse.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 11, 2019 at 2:09

Not pushing back on climate denials has allowed the debate to stall and for the easiest, least disruptive mitigation solutions to go unrealized.  As that trend continues, and in fact has gotten worse under this administration, we are left with less palatable choices.  If making some uncomfortable because they find the facts and arguments condescending, so be it.  The time for remaining silent is past.  It is time for voters to make up their minds and address the climate crisis with the priority that it deserves.

Permalink Reply by Jesse Joyner on October 11, 2019 at 8:36

Royal, do such skeptics have PhDs in climatology from top universities? Are their views based upon the objective facts of solid academic research, or are their views based upon subjective opinions? Do you think Einstein would have agreed with the thousands of credentialed scientists who've gone on record to legitimize the hard facts of climate change?

Permalink Reply by Craig Cooper on October 12, 2019 at 15:37

Jesse,

Yes, to your first question. https://judithcurry.com/about/

Permalink Reply by Jesse Joyner on October 12, 2019 at 18:25

Craig,

At first glance, Curry does seem to have decent credentials. Yet numerous scientists also dispute her scientific conclusions. Plus, her PhD is not in climatology. It's in Geophysical Sciences. She won't disclose her list of clients, although she has received funding from the fossil fuel industry and some think this reflects a conflict of interest. From the link below, Curry "denies playing down the urgency of climate action: 'I am saying nothing about that one way or the other.' "

Source Watch

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry

Permalink Reply by Craig Cooper on October 13, 2019 at 5:49

Jesse,

IMO the breadth & depth of her background, experience and career roles indicate that she is someone who is extremely qualified to provide pertinent insights into this topic. 

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/link.pdf

Though I try to stay abreast of both sides of key issues, personal preference is to rely on neutral / unbiased sources information to inform my opinion and / or to add to my knowledge base. Source Watch is rated "moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation" by mediabiasfactcheck.com so even though I don't entirely discount their comments, I take them with a big grain of salt. :-)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=sourcewatch

Permalink Reply by Jesse Joyner on October 13, 2019 at 7:29

Craig,

We both know that the glaciers are melting worldwide and the ocean levels are rising. The temperature averages are up, too. One can't ignore the facts. We both also know that the majority of unbiased scientists have agreed that the Earth is experiencing climate change. Curry is one outlier. One with dubious logic behind her arguments. There are hundreds and hundreds of prominent PhDs who are simply looking at the science. In life, I tend to believe those with top educations, not those with axes to grind for other reasons.

Time will tell the truth. Also, I assume we both agree that dirty coal is a big part of the problem and that the climate would benefit if there was much less coal burned. Hence, the need for NG.  

Permalink Reply by Craig Cooper on October 13, 2019 at 9:55

Jesse,

You should read through Dr. Curry's material before claiming that she denies that the climate is changing. The primary issue is whether and to what extent humans are impacting climate. 

To be clear, there is nearly universal agreement that the earth is currently experiencing warming as it makes its way out of the last ice age. There is honest disagreement about the nature and extent of our role in exacerbating the effects of natural warming.

Interglacials, such as the one we're in today, are naturally warm periods between glacial episodes; at times characterized by a glacier-free earth warmer, on average, than today; at other times characterized by substantially reduced areas of glacial coverage. The four most recent interglacial periods experienced maximum average temperatures >2 degrees C vs today. Interglacial periods have a duration ~10,000 - 30,000 years and we’re approximately 11,700 years into the latest interglacial period.

Therefore, natural warming will & should be expected to occur regardless of anthropogenic ‘contribution’.

So, IMO, the overwhelming focus & capital expenditure on reducing CO2 (at tax payer expense) is, at best, misguided. We should certainly address & prepare for the effects of rising temperatures & sea level, however, those efforts would be better spent on helping people relocate when necessary, limiting habitat destruction & unfettered deforestation, encouraging the prevention of future construction in wildland & floodplain areas, preservation of prairies and promoting more intelligent use of aquifers (to prevent subsidence) as well as on providing humanitarian efforts.

Dr Curry et al aren't outliers. There are a number of 'unbiased scientists' possessing 'decent credentials' with 'no axes to grind' who agree with and share her views. An unemotional, fact & evidence-based review of the peer-reviewed data & analyses would be worthwhile, IMO.

As you say, time will tell. And, yes, I agree that the use of coal should be eliminated - for a number of reasons.

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