quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


Is it possible that the cost to recover that oil is high enough to make it not economical at the current pricing? Nooooo, that can't be it. Obviously, they are business schmucks, and don't understand reality.

That's right no it cant be it,  they get welfare prices for government land, thats why so much is fallow, Williston (private lands) are getting from $400 to $4000 per acre land rent and up to 3/8ths no sharing on royalty, they clean it up.

The government (which is us, is providing massive corporate welfare on these cheap ass leases, including Oil, Spectrum, et al.) 

35 billion a year (in 2010): http://www.energyanswered.org/questions/how-much-do-u.s.-oil-companies-pay-in-royalties-to-government

"Between 2000 and 2006, natural gas production from U.S. shale formations grew an average of 17 percent per year, and an average of 48 percent per year from 2006 to 2010."

Ergo, chances are it's nearly double that amount by today.

Considering we spend approx. 400 billion a year in fuel and we import nearly half of our oil today (as opposed to in excess of 70% just 5 years ago), my guess is this works out to a roughly 35% royalty on the 1/2 of 400 billion we currently spend.

Hardly a trifle.

And considering an increasing share of the oil that's currently being found in the United States is on private land, the royalty is likely closer to 45%.

Thanks, proved my point for me. Its obviously well worth it to drill at 45%......We should start there and negotiate splits on margins.....I am trying to help our debt situation and you don't want to. That is awfully Republican of you....LOL

Of course....35 - 45% or thereabouts for providing essentially, dirt, is a horrible deal.

Perhaps you might have a more productive deal for the the US and the oil companies?

Something approaching 100% of the revenues coming from said drilling?

I'm sure that would sit well with their shareholders.

Yeah...DYB for Prez!!!!

Since I did have the courtesy to admit when I was wrong to you. So, if you would be so kind. I think we'd all appreciate seeing it from you. When, in fact, you realize you are dead wrong. peace

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

So gold in the ground doesn't make that land more intrinsically valuable than land that only has clay underneath? So in other words, diamond areas of North South Africa are the same in value as fallow farmland near capetown? I think a company called DeBeers would disagree.

Great report...but no. I don't feel like we are getting a fair price for those mineral rights. I think I have explained why. We should maximize our revenue. Its a free market system. If the current Oil Companies don't want to do this I am sure there will be other, more effecient entreprenuers that are out that there that would like the chance.....No?

Not sure why you mean diff Federal lands vs. US lands>?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


Is it possible that the cost to recover that oil is high enough to make it not economical at the current pricing? Nooooo, that can't be it. Obviously, they are business schmucks, and don't understand reality.

That's right no it cant be it,  they get welfare prices for government land, thats why so much is fallow, Williston (private lands) are getting from $400 to $4000 per acre land rent and up to 3/8ths no sharing on royalty, they clean it up.

The government (which is us, is providing massive corporate welfare on these cheap ass leases, including Oil, Spectrum, et al.) 

35 billion a year (in 2010): http://www.energyanswered.org/questions/how-much-do-u.s.-oil-companies-pay-in-royalties-to-government

"Between 2000 and 2006, natural gas production from U.S. shale formations grew an average of 17 percent per year, and an average of 48 percent per year from 2006 to 2010."

Ergo, chances are it's nearly double that amount by today.

Considering we spend approx. 400 billion a year in fuel and we import nearly half of our oil today (as opposed to in excess of 70% just 5 years ago), my guess is this works out to a roughly 35% royalty on the 1/2 of 400 billion we currently spend.

Hardly a trifle.

And considering an increasing share of the oil that's currently being found in the United States is on private land, the royalty is likely closer to 45%.

Thanks, proved my point for me. Its obviously well worth it to drill at 45%......We should start there and negotiate splits on margins.....I am trying to help our debt situation and you don't want to. That is awfully Republican of you....LOL

Of course....35 - 45% or thereabouts for providing essentially, dirt, is a horrible deal.

Perhaps you might have a more productive deal for the the US and the oil companies?

Something approaching 100% of the revenues coming from said drilling?

I'm sure that would sit well with their shareholders.

Yeah...DYB for Prez!!!!

Since I did have the courtesy to admit when I was wrong to you. So, if you would be so kind. I think we'd all appreciate seeing it from you. When, in fact, you realize you are dead wrong. peace