Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bacha29" data-source="post: 5473820" data-attributes="member: 58386">Why&nbsp; do you continue to hold to the belief that there is this ocean of crude oil under BLM land that will once again provide you with 2 dollar gas? And there&#039;s already BLM land leases on the table but there are no takers. Why? Because the data won&#039;t support the conclusion that there&#039;s enough there to support the cost of drilling and transportation.We saw this this past summer with the Cook Inlet lease offering. It expired because nobody would take the lease. Reason? Not enough oil believed to be there. Same holds true with Regenerate Alaska who forfeited it&#039;s lease on the 23K+ tract of land in ANWR&nbsp; that was put out for lease for drilling. Yes, it was within ANWR borders The reason given was that the other parties it hoped would come in on a joint venture backed out.&nbsp; Granted there might be some there but enough to make it a paying proposition is another matter altogether.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bacha29, post: 5473820, member: 58386"] Why do you continue to hold to the belief that there is this ocean of crude oil under BLM land that will once again provide you with 2 dollar gas? And there's already BLM land leases on the table but there are no takers. Why? Because the data won't support the conclusion that there's enough there to support the cost of drilling and transportation. We saw this this past summer with the Cook Inlet lease offering. It expired because nobody would take the lease. Reason? Not enough oil believed to be there. Same holds true with Regenerate Alaska who forfeited it's lease on the 23K+ tract of land in ANWR that was put out for lease for drilling. Yes, it was within ANWR borders The reason given was that the other parties it hoped would come in on a joint venture backed out. Granted there might be some there but enough to make it a paying proposition is another matter altogether. [/QUOTE]

Verification