71.159.155.156
In Reply to: RE: You might be interested in what New Mexico's Jeff Bingaman has to say. posted by free.ranger on June 25, 2008 at 09:34:09
He knows full well that most recent offshore leases have a ten year term, so by definition, significant amounts of the recent acreage leased hasn't been drilled. A crap pot full has been developed. Much of the remaining acreage will be developed. Some of it won't. Nearby dry holes another company drills may stop a compnay from sending more dollars down the drain. Or, often times a company will lease several blocks of primary interest and adjacent blocks in case their objectvie turns out to more prolific and far reaching, geologically speaking, than they originally thought. If that doesn't happen, that outlying acreage won't be drilled. In these cases, the leases simply revert back to the feds for re-leasing, if anybody will have them.
What the feds need to do, that most states and very large landowners do for their land, is have better oversight on what acreage ON a lease has been developed and what hasn't. Too often, a single well on a 5,000acre lease will "hold" that lease. In many states, that single well only "holds" the acreage overlying the productive reservoir. Acreage on the lease outside of the underlying reservoir should be returned to the feds once the primary term expires for re-leasing. My understadning is that the feds are weak in that department.
Bingaman makes a lot of sense, but that "not developing acreage argument" seems, to me at least, to be a red herring that sounds great in a sound bite but fails the sniff test. Companies simply can't develop every lease in their inventory in the year they get them. That's why for the last hundred or so years primary terms in leases of 3-10 years are the absolute rule.
"Allowing the very wealthy to keep their excessive wealth and have it trickle down to others will not work."
So, take their money, go DEMS!!!!!
Follow Ups: