So now they think that not only should the existing national parks (National Parks being a specific thing) be protected from drilling within the parks, which I support, but they also want the government to even restrict the owners of land and minerals around the park from using their land as they please. Why doesn't the Sierra Club just advocate making the entire nation a park and prevent everyone from doing anything that they oppose, which it appears, is everything.

In case the authors of this article didn't know, directionally drilled wells already exist under at least one national park with which I am familiar and those wells have been producing for more than twenty years without problems. The most recent drilling work was completed in the last 10 years. This is not a new idea.

I see this technology as the best of both worlds. The Federal government receives revenue from their mineral leases and the park is protected from disturbance within its boundary by the drilling operation. Current directional drilling technology can allow wells to be drilled as much as a couple miles away from the park if they are sufficiently deep wells, so they should have minimal effect on the park.

As usual, the Sierra Club and their like would complain if they were hung with a new rope. In many areas, more reasonable environmental groups have embraced the concept of directional drilling and multiple well drilling pads as a way to reduce the impact of drilling while still allowing multiple use of Federal lands by everyone, rather than just the elite within the environmental and wildlife factions. Federal lands do belong to everyone after all. Directional drilling under a national park will have no impact within the park itself and certainly would be no different than having conventional vertical wells drilled near the parks, which also already exist, in terms of impact outside the park.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't we(USA) once invade a country because it was slant-drilling into neighboring lands for oil???

But Carol, the parks belong to the USA, who would we invade? your thinking the parks belong to ?

Now that's a bit of non sequitur!

If the feds are compensated for the oil/gas extracted, that should remove the Kuwaiti Konflict.

No we didn't. Of course I am not surprised you would believe that.

I assume you are talking about the first Iraq war, which was fought because Iraq invaded its neighbor in order to acquire their oil, namely Kuwait. I believe there was some evidence that Iraq had drilled directional wells into Kuwait's portion of a large field that straddles the border between the countries to steal their oil. That was not the ultimate reason for the war, which was the invasion, but it was a concern to Kuwait, who of course, strongly objected.

Not only is your statement absurd, it shows the depth of the brainwashing you have allowed yourself to accept to promulgate and support your personal beliefs. We didn't invade Iraqi territory during the first Iraq war other than to pursue the Iraqi military back across their border sufficiently to create a secure buffer area and force a surrender. We also were not alone in that military operation, nor did the USA or any of the allies permanently occupy any Iraqi territory after the war. A polically motivated mistake that I personally believe led to the necessity for this current military operation, but that is another discussion.

For greater historical accuracy, let me add two items. Iraq always claimed Kuwait as a province of the old Caliphate centered on Basra. Second, the Kuwaitis were slant drilling under the disputed border zone. I am sure that the ad hominens slung between the sheiks of Kuwait and the Saddam of Iraq were worse than Monte can generate here. :)

Monte writes; " Why doesn't the Sierra Club just advocate making the entire nation a park and prevent everyone from doing anything that they oppose, which it appears, is everything. "

Thank you for that wonderful suggestion Monte, i will have to remember to write in that suggestion when my membership renewal comes up. And, please don't worry I'll make sure that your screen name "Monte" from the GW sustaining our environment forum, receives full credit for the idea.

Now, the nature of the problem with what Bush is doing is not necessarily in the concept, but the fact that he is going about this illegaly! Just the fact that Bush secretively handed this deal over to his Texas buddies, should leave every tax payer to wonder what kind of a sweetheart deal did he hand over. Considering how poorly Bush ran the oil company of which he was the CEO in Texas, I'm willing to bet the taxpayer is getting the royal shaft in this illegal deal.

Monte writes: "In many areas, more reasonable environmental groups have embraced the concept of directional drilling and multiple well drilling pads as a way to reduce the impact of drilling while still allowing multiple use of Federal lands by everyone, rather than just the elite within the environmental and wildlife factions. "

First, while the concept of directional drilling to some may seem wonderfully inobtrusive in a National Park, to the elite environmentalist its kind of the same as finding out about a spouse that is cheating on their mate. Just because its not visible doesn't mean its not going on and shouldn't be stopped.

Further, your line Monte of "more reasonable environmental groups have embraced the concept of directional drilling ", sounds like it is coming right out of a politicians mouth. In other words, what you're not saying is more important than what you are saying.

What you're not indicating is given a choice of no drilling or directional drilling, which one would a more reasonable environmental group accept or want. Hmmm, I'm willing to bet on the no drilling. However, not given a choice they would prefer directional drilling. Looks different now with the frosting off the cake doesn't it!

Sometimes it is necessary to just say no! Now that is sustainable.

Ahhhh, "federal rulemaking." Paraphrasing Shakespeare, tyranny by any other name stinks as badly. I cringe momentarily, not in total shame but yes, with some regret, to admit that I know more about that racket of power-grabbing and/or lording-over than I'll ever expose here.

Which "public" is holding which special interests accountable and transparent over this issue?

I side with Monte wholeheartedly on this, regardless of histories of Iraq, Kuwait, Big Oil, and ad hominems.

Now, the nature of the problem with what Bush is doing is not necessarily in the concept, but the fact that he is going about this illegaly! Just the fact that Bush secretively handed this deal over to his Texas buddies, should leave every tax payer to wonder what kind of a sweetheart deal did he hand over. Considering how poorly Bush ran the oil company of which he was the CEO in Texas, I'm willing to bet the taxpayer is getting the royal shaft in this illegal deal.

It is interesting that while the actual article pinpoints the source of the rule change as coming from the National Park Service, not specifically the Bush administration, the Sierra Club has taken the position that the Bush administration specifically drove this change. That wouldn't be convenient interpretation would it. This may be just a guess, but I suspect the President of the USA doesn't personally micro-manage every single operation handled by the hugely bureaucratic government. I am very sure that the Presidential seal of approval doesn't appear on any of the governments National Forest Service, BLM, and Corps of Engnineers oil and gas well permitting paperwork I have seen. I suspect it is the same for the National Park Service.

First, while the concept of directional drilling to some may seem wonderfully inobtrusive in a National Park, to the elite environmentalist its kind of the same as finding out about a spouse that is cheating on their mate. Just because its not visible doesn't mean its not going on and shouldn't be stopped.

I think if you read closer, I said I didn't support drilling in the National Park, just under it, and that such operations already exist in the current National Park system. I also don't consider an environmentalist who would be bothered by a directional well located several thousand feet, to a few miles, below the surface of the park as an elite, just as an obnoxious complainer with nothing better to do. Seems to me this is nothing more than the work of an obstructionist and not particulary useful or productive in protecting the National Park. However, it probably does keep the lawyers on the payroll so they can bath in all that cash sent in by suckered Sierra Club members who actually think their money is being use wisely.

You're absolutely right Monte, it is most unfortunate the Sierra Club must spend membership money protecting U.S. natural resources such as the National Parks from the Bush Whitehouse aka corporate america. Although, it gives me great pleasure knowing that my suckered in money is somehow making GW and his buddies miserable every time they lose in court.

"The only thing worse than suffering an injustice is committing an injustice."
--Plato

Monte,

At $48/barrel (yesterday's price), how much has US "petroleum reserves" increased compared to the figure for the period when world prices ranged under $25/barrel? I ask because in the past you've made much about how lower prices suppress exploration and production, especially from older fields and poorer quality crude.

Most of us weren't aware that US production took a big hit when those hurricanes tore up large sections of the pipe network linking the Gulf of Mexico production platforms with on-shore facilities. How far along are the repairs to this system and recovery of production?

Finally, just how extensive are reserves of petroleum and natural gas under Federal Parks and other lands? Ten-year supplies, 1-year supplies, 1-month supplies to meet domestic demand?

I can't believe I am saying this but I have to agree with Monte. Oil drilling is a dirty business and instead of littering the national parks with oil rigs and the associated hardware (trucks, pipes, mobile equipment, etc), coming in from outside the park makes more sense.

Now, what I don't agree with is that the decision to do this was kept in the dark. If there is seeming nothing wrong with it, why were there no announcement, hearings etc to discuss it?

A conspiracy is nothing but a secret agreement of a number of men for the pursuance of policies which they dare not admit in public

---Mark Twain

You're absolutely right Monte, it is most unfortunate the Sierra Club must spend membership money protecting U.S. natural resources such as the National Parks from the Bush Whitehouse aka corporate america. Although, it gives me great pleasure knowing that my suckered in money is somehow making GW and his buddies miserable every time they lose in court.

I guess I will have to take comfort in the knowledge that at least you admit the primary reason you donate your hard earned dollars to the Sierra Club is to fund harrassment lawsuits against corporate America and the Bush administration, rather than actually using the funds to perform useful and productive environmental work yourself. Your words.

At $48/barrel (yesterday's price), how much has US "petroleum reserves" increased compared to the figure for the period when world prices ranged under $25/barrel? I ask because in the past you've made much about how lower prices suppress exploration and production, especially from older fields and poorer quality crude.

It has been too short a time frame for official records to reflect any large increases in proven reserves. This process usually takes at least a year or more from the time the oil or gas is found and developed until sufficient evidence exists to provide the certification accounting firms with adequate proof.

Without a doubt, this recent large increase in the wellhead price of crude oil is increasing exploration, development, and enhanced recovery projects. As an anecdotal example, in this area a formation that normally was considered far too expensive to drill and produce under $25 per bbl is now seeing a drilling boom that surpasses anything in the last 15 years or more. In a nearby area where wells that cost around $800,000 a few years ago weren't being drilled due to economics there are horizontal wells costing over $2,000,000 being drilled regularly.

However, the demands on services and resources needed to accelerate development at the pace the operators desire has far exceeded those available. The greatest strain has been in the area of manpower. This is a sparsely populated area to start with. In addition, North Dakota has the lowest unemployment rate in the nation and Williams county has the lowest unemployment rate in the North Dakota. We are the most employed population in the nation and there simply aren't enough workers available to increase capacity as rapidly as desired. Need a good paying job with long hours and difficult working conditions? Come on down.

Most of us weren't aware that US production took a big hit when those hurricanes tore up large sections of the pipe network linking the Gulf of Mexico production platforms with on-shore facilities. How far along are the repairs to this system and recovery of production?

I have heard that part of the impetus behind the recent downturn in crude prices from the peak around $55 is the result of most of those repairs being completed to allow those facilities to come back on line. I suspect their production will soon be back near normal.

Finally, just how extensive are reserves of petroleum and natural gas under Federal Parks and other lands? Ten-year supplies, 1-year supplies, 1-month supplies to meet domestic demand?

I think the reserves under National Parks are probably minimal. By the way, ANWR is not a park. The majority of the larger parks in the USA are located in geological provinces that rarely have oil and gas accumulations. Examples of such are Yellowstone, Glacier, Yosemite, etc., are in high mountain areas with primarily igneous, volcanic, and metamorphic rocks. Also, even if those parks has viable oil and gas deposits within their boundaries, their large size would mean only a small fraction of the area would be accessible from the edges with directional drilling.

A quick look at the majority of the park examples in the article seems to show that most of those parks affected are small to very small in size and may have large percentages within the range of directional drilling. They also are likely in sedimentary rock dominated areas and probably at least some of them are near existing oil and gas production.

Monte writes: "I guess I will have to take comfort in the knowledge that at least you admit the primary reason you donate your hard earned dollars to the Sierra Club is to fund harrassment lawsuits against corporate America and the Bush administration, rather than actually using the funds to perform useful and productive environmental work yourself."

Monte, Monte, Monte, your true colors are beginning to show, just where did I use the word " primary ", and where does it say in what I wrote that "the Sierra Club does not use funds to perform useful and productive environmental work", where, just show me where?

Hmmm, while you might be proud of your attempt at twisting the meaning of my words, I would caution and remind you of the wise words and the quote....

"Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
-- by Abraham Lincoln

.... before trying that again.

A more intelligent approach might have tried to put me on the spot by asking " just what has the Sierra Club accomplished, besides filing law-suits to stop and prevent illegal activity against the U.S. tax payer and the environment ", but now that opportunity has gone up in smoke.

And, considering the fact that time and time again, the Sierra Club wins its law suits, is a clear indication they fall on the side of justice and the courts do not see them as harrassment.

The problem with trying to achieve a sustainable society is there are far too many people that only see the world one dimensionally, and that is the idea of " what can be consumed to make my life more comfortable ", without any fore or after thought as to the consequences.

"He who is not contented with what he has, would not be contented with what he would like to have."
-- Socrates

The proper attitude of leave it pristine and completely alone is completely sustainable. However, that would completely ignore societies insatiable appetite for more. That is why the sooner the small minority of those working and developing alternative energy, needs to quickly become the majority. And, the sooner everyone learns to " just say no to the oil companies " (like the Sierra Club), the sooner alternatives will be developed, and the sooner this current unsustainable " steam-roller " will be stopped.

And, considering the fact that time and time again, the Sierra Club wins its law suits, is a clear indication they fall on the side of justice and the courts do not see them as harrassment.

There are several reasons that the Sierra Cluband similar organizations win lawsuits against energy companies and the majority have little to do with legality of the energy companies work.

First and foremost is the lack of any tort reform within out legal system that would provide an financally painfull incentive for plaintiffs to make certain their lawsuits are founded in evidence and therefor winable before entering into litigation. If the Sierra Club had to compensate energy companies and other corporations for the costs they incurr defending themselves against frivilous lawsuits as well as their loss of invested capital, then the Sierra Club would be filing far fewer claims and winning even more rarely.

Some of the lawsuits filed by the Sierra Club and other organizations are filed simply to delay development of energy resources long enough for them to become uneconomical. This is especially true in the case of legitimate oil and gas leases on Federal land that will expire after a given period of time. All that is needed is to delay development sufficiently long to make development impossible before the lease expires. Without tort reform, the need for a successful legal challenge is not necessary, just a continuous supply of plaintiffs consuming valuable time and capital. I suspect that many of the lawsuits wins you claim are actually cases where the defendent has decided it is uneconomical to continue, rather than a situation where they couldn't ultimately win the legal challenge.

As far as why they would do it in secret, they probably knew they would be challenged by an environmental group (or groups) and hoped to have started before they noticed.

A contractor friend of mine has a saying regarding building permits and the like: "Sometimes, it's easier to say I'm sorry than to ask permission." It can sometimes take a month for him to get a permit for a project that would only take him a week. It's much less headache for him to do the job and then call for the inspection, he has yet to fail to have a permit issued retroactively provided the construction was within code.

The worse that can happen is he can have the job red-flagged before completion and have to wait for the permit to be issued to finish, but he won't have to wait much longer than if he had filed for the permit ahead of time.

Obviously he doesn't attempt this with building a new home, much less on the scale of anything that requires an environmental impact report, but the principle is the same. Judged by its risk to benefit ratio, it was a good decision, though admittedly, not necessarily the right one.

Monte, you must be related to, or acquainted with, a guy quoted in a past National Geographic article on North Dakota. I remember reading the article, years ago, and still remember the quote - concerning the climate - "It keeps the riffraff out." Chalk that up for one good excuse to promote global cooling! ;-)

Full disclosure: I have relatives who are exploring for petroleum or gas using directional drilling, in a location I shall not disclose. In their case, no state or national park I know of is involved. However, there is interest in avoiding disturbance of (unreserved) wetlands, plus cropland. I think a large number of Sierra Club members might be pleasantly surprised at the environmentalism of many non-members, including people exploiting oil reserves.

To paraphrase someone younger than Shakespeare (Adam Sandler?): it's a material world, and we're all material girls. So it is a fair question to ask what the Sierra Club has done (or is doing) to lower the cost per person of energy, food, shelter, transportation, and government. I am curious about how the Sierra Club quantifies returns on its investments. "Won XXX lawsuits preventing commercial development on ZZZ,ZZZ,ZZZ acres" smacks as more of a metric on mischief than a measure of merit.

Even Forward Management, investment advisor to the Sierra Club Funds, is evidently aware that "The Sierra Club uses those revenues to support objectives that include safeguarding wildlands, curbing urban sprawl, protecting national forests and working to stop global warming." OK: so how, other than by lawsuits and other "educational and advocacy services," are those objectives pursued?

Stitches, the bottom line is the consumption of polluting fossil fuels is not sustainable! Its not rocket science or brain surgery, so how is it that such a simple concept so easily escapes the intellect of so many. Oh, perhaps its because the problem, or at least it is thought, has not begun to affect certain people on a personal level. Well, the unfortunate news is that it does along with every living creature on the planet, every single day. The simple fact that so many people do not recognize it does not mean it isn't happening.

I wonder how these same people would feel about playing a game of Russian roulette? My guess is they would be alarmed and chicken out right away. Why, because they realize after the first four pulls of the trigger its inevitable the unsustainable bullet is chambered in one of the next two trigger pulls. Well, the problem the environmentalists are attempting to point out is that our unsustainable approach to living is like a game of Russian roulette, and that the game has already begun. Alarmist's, reactionist's, earth lover's, maybe all, but to error on the side of good judgement is a virtue.

As sizeable as this planet might seem, it is only one finite point in the vast universe and at last check astronomers have yet to find another inhabitable planet nearby. In recognition of this slight problem, perhaps its time to re-think our current approach to caring for this planet.

Stitches, while your relatives are graciously patting themselves on the back for exploiting oil reserves while treading carefully in regards to avoiding law suits by violating wetlands encroachment and the like, ask them what portion of their profits have they donated to environmental causes such as cleaning the air that gets polluted from burning the oil being drilled.

And, say there Stitches are you suggesting when asking what does the Sierra Club do to lower U.S. consumer costs, that when the price of a barrel of oil rises to $55, your relatives begin jumping up and down screaming there is no way in hell they're going to accept that much and will only accept say, $29 dollars a barrel? Can I stop holding breath yet(:o)?????

"Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
-- by Abraham Lincoln ,
.... between you and Monte this quote is going to need a new pair of shoes soon!

Stitches writes: "The Sierra Club uses those revenues to support objectives that include safeguarding wildlands, curbing urban sprawl, protecting national forests and working to stop global warming."

Unfortunately its not enough, but its a start. That's also why I support other environmental groups ;-).

By the way Stitches, and let's not leave out Monte either, while both of you two are well versed in many facts, I cannot help but notice you both tend to leave out, overlook, and ignore using the key word of this forum in your discussions. Ahhh, but how to work in the idea of something unsustainable with sustainabiltiy, hmmm, I see the problem. Never mind.

Monte, nagamaki might be right. We, you and I, might not belong here, in this forum. We're (allegedly) not worthy of contributing to this discussion, since we (allegedly) fail to use the word "sustainable." That is sin enough. And to think...!...ah, to think! that all along, I thought "albedo," not "sustainable," was one of the coins in the rhetorical currency of the bourgeois, the anointed, the environmentally perfect ("correct" just ain't good enuf). Monte, you and I stand "corrected" - how 'bout U n me hangin' here anudder post er 2, n may B get PURFECKTID???

THE bottom line is that there is not A bottom line. Bottom lines require free and fair trade to be worth considering. Sustaining the application of power to ensure the consumption of liberty that's necessary to ensure that the consumption of polluting fossil fuels is not sustained, is unsustainable. "Click" or BANG, doesn't make a difference, the game's always on, we never win; our cures are always worse than our diseases. Yet onward we clone...

"Tis better to remain noisy and be thought a censor, than to sue and remove all doubt."
- John Wilkes Booth, channeled by John Edwards in court

Sorry to intrude, but I was wondering whether the co. is giving its profits from the oil it's drilling to the US Treasury? After all, the oil under those lands is also in public trust - isn't it?

Or are public lands just for parks/recreation? Are resources therein up for grabs by private companies?

Wait, I think I know the answer.....

The money from the oil and gas produced under the parks is allocated in the same way it is for a private lease. The royalty owner, i.e. the USA, receives around one eight of the revenue generated from the sale of the oil and gas. The remainder goes to the company or individuals who invested the capital needed to develope the resource. In addition, out of the company's portion of the oil and gas revenue they also pay all the required extraction taxes, etc., to the state and federal government. Then, after all expenses are deducted, they pay income taxes on the profit. So yes, the US government gets compensated just as they would in any other oil and gas operation on Federal land. This is in addition to the lease payments they make prior to development of the resource.

Last sunday I was watching the show Nature on PBS. It happened to be about grizzlies in Yellow stone park. But what I learned (I wasn't surprised )was that there has been drilling of oil wells going on for several years. Sarah

An owner doesn't have to settle for a 1/8 royalty interest. Most companies will pay at least 3/16 if pressed. If the government is losing out on a third of the potential revenue from the depletion of oil under public lands, all taxpayers are losing out.

Thanks again Monte, I think you solved a mystery for me.

I heard the relatives talking about "one-twelfth" with respect to royalties. I couldn't figure out why they were discussing that fraction as "standard." The 1/8 you mentioned works out to .125, or twelve percent. That's probably what they meant. [Cha-CHING!]

Sorry, but 1/8th is by far the most common royalty payment in the USA and is so by a huge margin. For certain, a 50% increase over that rate is very rare. Occasionally, I will see lease agreements that include 1% or 2% over-rides but not 6.25%. Only those private mineral rights owners who happen to own minerals in areas with very good potential or have control of large contiguous tracts of land will get more than 1/8th. By far, most who hold out for more than 1/8th royalty get to settle for zero instead, and that goes for the US government as well. For the Federal government, by far the largest mineral holder in the USA, to hold out for a substantially larger royalty than is considered standard by the industry would likely amount to excessive interference of the government in interstate commerce.

In regard to Yellowstone Park and the grizzlies, no oil and gas drilling is currently active in the immeadiate vicinity of the park, that I am aware and that is the business I am in. In fact, I am not aware of any drilling having occurred in that area for many years. Sounds like environmentalist or wildlife activist scaremongering to me. Most drilling is at least 50 to 100 miles away, either to the south around Rock Springs or Wamsutter, Wyoming or to the east in the Big Horn basin. Neither of these areas is likely to be grizzly territory at this time. The immeadiate Yellowstone Park area itself is not likely to have conducive geologic structures or lithology for oil and gas accumulation. However, the average American is so geographically challenged today that mentioning drilling anywhere in Wyoming probably equates to drilling next to Yellowstone Park regardless of the fact that much of the state is hundreds of miles from the park.

Monte I apologize, I really thought I heard that. As far as being geographically challenged I have been known to get lost in the township next to mine so since the only state I have ever been to out west is Oregon I really am a fish out of water about Wyoming. Sarah

We've let oil and gas leases all my life on our properties in Mississippi (mostly) and several other states and have never settled for a 1/8 royalty, and have never had a company refuse to pay 3/16. That seems to be common practice throughout our main basin, and I have even heard of 1/4 royalty payments for leases adjacent to actively producing units. If companies want the possible oil or gas bad enough, they will pay. As a federal taxppayer, I find it ludicrous the government doesn't demand more for oil from public lands. Selling oil at a rate less than we private landowners sell for has the potential to devalue our assets and amounts to excessive interference by the government in the free market.

"amounts to excessive interference by the government in the free market"

You're a little late to make that observation. Remember Preston Tucker?

Ryan

Well, I googled for Preston Tucker and here is somewhat of a synopsis.

The other day, I saw a bumper sticker... It said: "Earth First!!! (We'll mine the others later).. Aint it sad?, aint it true?