If Obama Cuts Oil Development on Federal Land by half (700,000 ac. from 1.3 mil ac.) what effects will that have on the private mineral owner, if any?
Thanks in advance!
Kaye, I wouldn't expect much change in the immediate future. It's not like rigs are going to be mothballed for lack of somewhere to drill. Those withdrawn acres could be open for drilling again in a couple years. I would hope at that time, or even sooner, that the stewards of "our" oil would include a more competitive royalty rate and if they take their/our/the governments, royalty in kind, that the oil companies not be on the honor system for the delivery of the oil.
r w I agree, I thought it was as bad as it gets with residential housing, but these Oil Co's. have placed a new meaning on greed going back for decades! With all the money they've pocketed you would think they'd all be up there in the Top 10! heehee BTW thanks for commenting, I was beginning to wonder if maybe I had crossed the line again by getting to political! lol
Kaye, I don't think one could separate oil and politics, or world hunger and politics or pick any example that suits you.
Dear Kaye,
From the article that I read several days ago, it was lands for oil shale development and tar sand development. Oil shale is not the same thing as shale oil and the recovery methods are different. What we are used to talking about on this board are shale oil development, like the Bakken.
Tar sands are likewise another creature. The Canadian Tar Sands are the prime quoted reason for the Keystone XL pipeline development.
The problem with oil shale and tar sand is that the extraction costs are astronomical. Last estimate that I heard, the break-even point was about $70.00 per bbl.
I know very little about oil shale development, but the tar sand development process was to mine the tar sand and treat it at the surface to extract the heavy oils.
As far as the effect on the private mineral owner, I am hard pressed to see any effect at all.
Thanks you guys!