The other thing to note is that it is impossible to predict the effect of the oil we have because:

1. We don't know what we will have in 20 yrs. Lets call it a swag.
2. We don't know what the world will have in 20 yrs. Lets call that SWAG

Therefore, all we have percentage wise is swag/SWAG*100

Wake up yourself--some of us will benefit from the industry like we are with the resurgence of drilling in some of the gulf states;)

So because you think things might change in 20 years we should continue
to do the same thing over and over that has not worked.

Brilliant !

I wonder what Einstein would have to say about that ?


:jester:
RichC

.

.

How are you guys benifiting from the drilling going on in the gulf ?

:jester:
RichC

.

Wrong. The relative impact is much more predictable than the actual price. I can't believe you're even arguing about this.

We have a pretty good idea. It's not like we don't know at all.

How would we know? Do you know what a given oil field will produce in 20 years? Do you know what technology will be present that might make it more profitable and so continue extraction? Oil fields once thought "dry" are coming back to life because cost and technology has made extraction more profitable today. Is that factored into their equation?

Without all these and probably more, what we have is just a guess as opposed to a pretty good idea.

Wrong, the relative impact is itself impossible to predict.

Why?

Look at the assumptions in the model.

I can't believe you're even arguing about this.

B

Gulf states. Investing in leases and production.

Google Friede Goldman Halter and use your imagination as to how some of us will benefit from offshore drilling.

You want a fast boat that can take rough seas and haul nearly anything? http://www.vthaltermarine.com/ You hear those big diesel twins cut loose at the end of the Fourchon jetties as the boat accelerates. Whoa! Wish I had a recording of that to share. I rode on the bridge of one going down Southwest Pass. That is a wonder to watch and feel.

They build offshore platforms too;)

Then there are the onshore rig builders trying to keep up demand for Haynesville Shale prospectors.

http://www.haynesvilleshales.com/, No one knows for sure just how big the Haynesville Shale natural gas field is. But they do know it's big!

Companies like Chesapeak and Petrohawk have invested millions into the project.

But, how big will the economic impact be? A new well that hit last month in south Bossier parish is producing almost 17 million cubic feet per day. Translated, that's about $6 million dollars a month.
http://www.ktbs.com/news/Haynesville-Shale-Economic-impact-14215/ http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/SPECIALPROJECTS02/805040320

And the thousands of small landowners, like moi, who are getting leased and who may receive royalty checks for decades (ask me what that's like, I'm getting between $100 and $300 per month and have been for 37 years. Ha!).

Yes, because the relative impact of US offshore drilling is unlikely to be affected by improvements in oil extraction technology as those improvements will occur globally. The only way US offshore drilling would have a significant impact is if the other major oil producers started running out of extractable oil before we do, but based on current estimates that's extremely unlikely and you wouldn't want to experience that kind of impact anyway as it would likely lead to a global depression unless alternative energy becomes mainstream by then.

We were talking about oil, not natural gas, but since you brought it up, the US does have plentiful NG fields which could be used to make synthetic motor fuels, thereby significantly reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Ideally biomass would gradually replace NG as the source to make these fuels.

It's all good. I don't think anybody but a complete freaking fruitcake argues for only one energy source.

B