« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

LA Makes a Pitch for a Share of BP’s New Gulf Oil Find

On Thursday, I wrote about the announcement of a new giant oil field discovered by BP in the Gulf of Mexico. It’s in 4,100 feet of water, and the well is over 35,000 feet deep. If it turns out to be as big as BP hopes it is, it might be BP’s biggest Gulf find and deliver half the output of Prudhoe Bay. Big field.

On Friday comes
word that Bobby Jindal and the State of Louisiana have their eye on the prize.

This will be interesting.

It’s not that Louisiana is really entitled to anything. Contrary to popular conception, from 1947 until the law was changed in 2006, coastal states had no claim on the oil and gas resources located seaward of the state boundary – 10 milles offshore in Texas and 3 miles in Louisiana.

In 2006, largely as a result spotlight of the 2005 hurricanes, the coastal state congressional delegations, led by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), successfully argued that it was appropriate to share 37.5% of the Feds’ cut with the coastal states, instead of the same money going into the general fund. (Inland states, like Wyoming, get up to a 50% cut of royalties from Federal lands within their borders. In one recent year, WY’s share of Federal royalties was nearly $1 billion, vs around $25 million for LA, IIRC.)

But the change in the royalty scheme applies only to leases granted after the law changed. Many of the deepwater leases where the giant fields are being found are older than that, BP’s Tiber discovery among them.

Louisiana has pledged the money it collects through revenue-sharing toward rebuilding the state’s eroding coastline, a problem exacerbated by the countless offshore pipelines cut through the marsh to reach oil refineries. But new federal estimates suggest that Louisiana will earn far less from the revenue-sharing arrangement than initially thought. Coastal planners are meanwhile scrambling to bankroll multibillion-dollar restoration plans.

When Congress passed the 2006 revenue-sharing bill, Louisiana politicians hailed the end of a decades-old battle to win compensation for the state’s role in offshore fuel production. Estimates at the time put Louisiana’s take at roughly $20 million a year until 2017, after which point the state would earn more than $500 million a year.

But those numbers were wildly optimistic, according [to Garret Graves, chairman of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority], who said the Minerals Management Service recently downgraded its revenue estimates.

Graves said Louisiana will receive about $7 million in offshore revenue this year and would likely get less than $4 million annually until 2017. After that year, Louisiana will be lucky to get $150 million a year, a far cry from the half-billion dollar figure touted in 2006.

“This would be a legislative fix,” Graves said of the plan to broaden the revenue-sharing agreement.

But the first dollar of revenue is a long way off and none too certain. Oil companies rarely advertise the size and scope of a new big discovery based on the results of a single well.

Big questions also remain about the viability of BP’s Tiber well, or any other production from the lower-Tertiary, which could take a decade or more to yield returns.

BP is still appraising its first major discovery in the formation, a 2006 prospect known as Kaskida. Tiber, located 250 miles southeast of Houston, must undergo similar assessments “to determine the size and commerciality of the discovery,” according to a statement from BP.

Other factors, such as changes in the market price of oil, will also come into play. Tiber could have as much as three billion barrels of oil, of which BP will be lucky to extract one billion barrels, said Eric Smith, associate director of the Tulane Energy Institute.

“BP will spend the better part of 10 years and several billion dollars to bring this one on stream some time after 2017,” Smith wrote in an e-mail.

COMMENTS

  • jccbin

    And just how much risk did LA take in finding this oil?
    IT is clearly stated in the article that the feds never expected any revenue from this because they poo-poo’d the idea that there was even oil there.
    What the heck makes them think they are entitled to any of this money? Divine Right?
    Bobby Jindal better back the hell off and tell the feds to do so too. They screwed up by being incompetent. They deserve NOTHING on this find.
    Nothing!

    • Next93

      It’s always amazed me that anyone can, with a straight face, talk about “Big Oil Windfall Profits”. Yet you hear this constantly from people with such impressive job titles as journalist, politician, community organizer, and professional activist.

      If you can consider a ten-year investment to drill a 7-mile well under nearly a mile of water a “windfall”, I’d really be interested to hear what your last major accomplishment was. It might just be me, but I just don’t think that, say, a petition drive is in the same category.

      Next time you hear someone complain about Windfall profits, ask them how much time they’ve spent on an oil rig.

      • mom2oneson
    • Achance

      that supports developing a field. LA has a long and highly developed oil field support system but there will be an incremental burden imposed by developing any new field. Additional labor to build the rigs and pipelines will impose demands on roads, water and sewer, schools, police and fire, social services, etc. That has to be paid for from some source. Roads and ports will be subjected to more wear and tear and may require expansion to support the new field.

      We can argue whether these impacts are offset by the increased economic development and the taxes paid by the labor and the businesses involved, but we can’t say that LA is not impacted.

      We here in Alaska are looking at a serious conflict with the US if the Chuckchi Sea fields are ever developed. They’re in federal OCS. Under the Statehood Act, Alaska should get 90% of the revenue, but the US will pay that to Alaska only if we pry it from the fed’s cold, dead fingers. The Northwest Arctic Coast has almost zero infrastructure and little skilled labor, so all the labor will have to be imported and the base of operations will probably be the village of Kotzebure, pop. about 4000 with no road connection to anywhere. If it comes to Kotz, it comes on a barge in summer or by air. It would be unlikely that many people working on the field would move to Kotz, but Kotz will become a major staging area and the State and the borough (similar to a county in other states) will have to provide all the infrastructure for staging. Alaska has no income tax, so the only way it can get revenue to support the added infrastructure is from a share of the field and taxes on the landbased development.

      • RedBeard

        …according to the “green” philosophy of Obama’s favorite loony commie truther, Van Jones.

    • http://www.nixonsghost.wordpress.com hondav65

      We take a risk in harvesting this oil because it’s going to come through our state. A lot of it will be processed in our state. With increased risk should come increased reward – it’s the American way.

      Additionally – Louisiana is one of the few states that welcomes drilling off our shores. Most States refuse to have it – like California. In my opinion – this makes Louisianan’s PATRIOTS because we’re supplying this nation with the energy it needs while fields in California go undeveloped because of the Latte-sipping marxists out there – who are, by the way, BROKE.

      States who allow drilling need to reap the rewards. Republican Bobby Jindal will put those revenues to better use than Obama and Barney Frank will. Can you even dispute that?

      • jccbin

        Nothing prevents BP from shipping it elsewhere. Or abandoning it completely if you moneygrubbers don’t back the heck off.

        What stops them from filling tankers and sending the crude to Mexico or Cuba?

        I’m all for LA getting paid for work it actually does, but that should be a transaction, not a piece of the action legislated by thugs and hooligans in a state house.

        In other words, MAKE LA (the state) WORK for its money, just like the rest of us.

        • Achance

          from LA or AK. Frankly, I’d be quite happy with very reduced production here so we could turn every car on the Left Coast into a lawn ornament until those states either significantly depopulated or they change their thinking and stop invading us with Greenies and lawsuits.

          • jccbin

            with Government being told it must be productive?

            I honestly, and respectfully, question the conservatism behind letter ANY government just take what they do not own or earn.

            We let the Pols get too much of our money already.

          • Achance
        • Achance

          is between LA and the US. LA wants royalty and tax revenue that the US is taking already. But, I guess you prefer Barney Frank decide how that money gets spent rather than Bobby Jindal.

          • jccbin

            is NOT just a Politician?

            Yes, he’s conservative. Yay. But so what? Vote for him!

            That doesn’t mean his or any government should get something just because they want it.

            That is the same bribery and extortion as the Democrats and Progressives use.

            And I wish Barney Frank would try to swim out to that well site all alone on a cold, dark night.

          • jccbin

            The Feds should not get any of this money either.

            They plainly stated they didn’t expect it to work and declined to take part in the R&D. Ok. Fine. You can pay full price, Mr. Federal Government incompetentocrat.

            I think either party demanding this money for the Legislature to spend is just more of the same old thuggery that has been going on since the Progs took over in the early 20th Century. It is just plain vile.

          • Achance

            would just go to whoever sticks a drill in it for free; I don’t think so! That oil has value and that value belongs to all of the people of the US. The dispute between LA and the US, as it would be and has been between Alaska and the US, is over what portion of the royalty the state most impacted by the development gets.

            As it stands now, CA and many other states refuse any oil development on their lands and block development on federal lands yet when oil is developed off other states, CA residents share in that revenue.

          • http://www.nixonsghost.wordpress.com hondav65

            Look – you’re barking a dead argument – there are revenues that are generated on the oil and if the State doesn’t get them – the Feds do.

            Period.

            So Barney Frank either gets to spend this money – or Rick Perry or Bobby Jindal do.

            No brainer to me.

            If you want to change the law to make it where the oil companies pay no revenues to the Feds or the State – but keep it all to themselves – I think most of us would be behind you on that.

            But that is not what this thread is about.

          • SteveLA

            Art

            Go read about some of the history of Louisiana and the Standard Oil company in this sort of thing. The issue of oil taxes and feeding the welfare state in Louisiana dates back to the King fish. You can bet your last dollar on the fact that this is going to turn into a a big deal with all those dollars to spent by Louisiana politicians at stake. Many a political future has been made on this topic in Louisiana.

          • Achance

            which is a very good, Pulitzer Prize winning, history of the oil industry.

            There is no doubt that great oil revenue in a state’s hands has a strong tendency to turn the citizens of that state into trust fund babies; God knows we have enough of it here. Basically, the government can do anything here as long as the Permanent Fund Dividend is over a thousand a head. Unlike LA where you’re only dealing with a share of federal royalties, here the state owns ALL subsurface rights out to twelve miles.

          • http://www.nixonsghost.wordpress.com hondav65

            Give me a break – the King Fish has been dead and gone forever.

            Huey P has nothing to do with Louisiana anymore. Hell – we didn’t even get a share of these revenues until after Katrina and Congressman Bobby Jindal was the guy that drove the effort for us to get them.

            You can argue whatever you want – but the people of Louisiana have more right to those revenues than the people of California do.

            Oh but – whatever – it’s just law, hell.

        • Vladimir

          “What stops them from filling tankers and sending the crude to Mexico or Cuba? “

          Export restrictions to Cuba, for one.

          I can’t quote chapter & verse, but I have to think there are restrictions on exporting OCS oil to Mexico, too.

          • louisiana

            supertankers? They could then transport the oil to any number of refineries. If the oil is in international waters, what legal recourse would LA have?

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            The experts can correct me, but the image I see of trying to load crude oil onto a supertanker on the open ocean from an oil derrick – the waves and wind and cross currents – send shivers down my spine. I don’t see how it could be done safely if at all, and the risk of oil spills would probably make the whole project uninsurable – not to mention risks of damage to the ship or the oil derrick.

            But again, I’ll defer to the experts.

          • louisiana

            has worked in the oilfield for over 33 yrs. (both in the gulf & on land rigs), and is a directional driller. That doesn’t make him an expert, but he seems to think it can be done. I couldn’t argue the point because I know I don’t have the knowledge or experience that he has. It’s certainly something I need to research.

          • Vladimir

            Oil is generally moved from offshore to market in pipelines, which are safer and less susceptible to weather. And more efficient in the long run.

            Regardless of where the oil is refined, there is a support infrastructure onshore for boats, helicopters, roads for workers & supplies, etc.

            Understand that LA’s proposal would not cost the oil company anything. The state wants to share the Federal gov’t's slice of the pie.

          • Achance
          • louisiana

            For some reason, I assumed La wanted a piece directly from BP’S profits. I do have some knowledge about the oilfield business. My Father worked as a diesel mechanic on rigs in Iran, Holland, Scotland, Venezuela, & other places. My husband has worked in the oil field since 1977. He’s held many jobs, one of which was an oil terminal manager & is currently working for a refinery. I probably should know alot more about the business, but frankly, I always found it to be boring. Guess I’ll have to change my mindset if I intend to enter into these discussions!

        • http://www.nixonsghost.wordpress.com hondav65

          Louisiana’s oil industry includes drilling and refining.

          The only thing I’ll concede to you here is whether or not Texas should get the revenues or Louisiana. If none of the oil or the support for harvesting it is associated with Louisiana – then we shouldn’t get the dough. However – I’m willing to bet we’ll play a major role in all that.

          I’m not sure you really understand the oil industry down here. Many of the rigs pump their oil directly ashore via miles of pipeline on the ocean floor. Many do use tankers to haul it ashore. All of the rigs require helicopter support – and crews to man the rigs. Additionally – they require support ships to haul in supplies and crews. Divers, unmanned vehicles, etc.

          Those aren’t coming from Cuba. :D

          But in any case – these revenues aren’t just “invented” from whole cloth. Either the Federal Government gets the money or the State gets the money. Judging by the way the Feds have been wasting money – I’d say the State is a better steward of that cash – especially with a Republican Governor and Congress.

          And I’d also say that I don’t think California should get one penny of the revenues – since they refuse to expand oil drilling off their own coast – another reason for it to stay local.

    • Richard Mullins

      Really you forgot that this is waters that are not in the border of any country(LOST never got signed AFAIK). The fact remains that LA does rights to some royalties and Tiber isn’t the only find the Lower Tertiary.

      I think need to study up on things before you post. You can start by reading this
      http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/6598536.html

      Until then, try not to be so clueless in matters like this.

  • http://www.nixonsghost.wordpress.com hondav65

    States that allow drilling offshore SHOULD reap the rewards of it. I’m a Louisianan – the support for harvesting that oil will mostly come through Louisiana, including transporting it through Louisiana.

    We take an acceptable risk to our environment with allowing the drilling and all other aspects of the oil industry. We’re willing to deal with it. Louisianan’s are PATRIOTS to this nation because we’re supplying it with the energy it needs. We aren’t the only Patriots – there’s Alaska, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama – many others. But there are many states that are, quite frankly, not pulling their load (cough) California (cough).

    Any State that allows drilling should be rewarded for it.

    • SteveLA
      • jccbin

        If the good people of Louisiana work on the rig(s), they get paid a wage and they pay taxes.

        If the Oil Co pipes oil through private property, they pay a lease on the easement.

        If Joe Bloe Oil Cleanup Co makes a living going aroung picking up minor spills and doing checks on things, they get paid by the job or contract over a period of time for work done.

        The State of Louisiana should only get paid for WORK it does. If the Pols want the dough, let them do something for it, other than pass laws demanding the funds.

        • Vladimir

          OTOH, I don’t want to pick a fight with achance.

          Louisiana got a fairly raw deal in terms of its slice of the pie.

          Somewhere above you asserted that the Feds don’t “deserve” any of the oil revenue, apparently (in your mind) because they haven’t done any “work” and at one time nobody thought this area was prospective for oil and gas.

          That’s not how it works.

          The Feds have title to the exclusive economic zone of the U.S. seaward of the state boundaries, out to the territorial limit, which in this case is either 200 miles from land, or halfway to Mexico.

          The Feds administer lease sales and regulate oil and gas production.

          In my mind LA has a beef because our state waters extend only 3 miles while TX & FL extend 10. That deal was cut 50 years ago.

          Nearly every state with onshore production (including LA) has a “severance tax” on mineral extraction. It generally averages 5 to 7% of revenue, and is nominally intended to compensate the state for the impact on its infrastructure resulting from exploration and production activity. LA cannot levy such a tax on offshore production (although some populist candidates have tried in recent years to impose a “processing tax” on oil & gas that goes through our refineries & gas plants).

          Originally, the deal was a good one for LA, since the abundance of offshore gas led to the development of a bunch of chemical & fertilizer plants in the N.O.-B.R. corridor on the Miss. River that use nat gas as a feedstock. In the 80s, the Feds overhauled the natural gas regs & took away much of the advantage – the gas is no longer as cheap as it used to be — so the terms of the deal have changed from LA’s perspective.

          And when you talk about the people whose job it is to go around and clean up the oil spills, you beclown yourself.

          • Vladimir

            Port Fourchon, an example of the kind of onshore infrastructure necessary to support offshore activity.

          • jccbin

            there are no companies that make money contracting to keep the pipelines safe, clean, in good working order? Perhaps they are direct subsidiaries of the oil company itself, or even direct employees, but SOMEONE does it. In your haste to beclown me, you let my inarticulation of the exact JOB Description be your guide to mocking me.
            Fine. Enjoy that while I work to prevent ANY government from touching my money.

            Republicans have screwed us over for the last 15 years or so, spending as badly as the Dems. There is NO reason to trust any of them at their word. DEMAND verification, transparency, and accountability.

            All this really sounds like to me is that the Pro-LA folks may want to join in the under-the-table corruption for their own purposes.

            “Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss.”– Won’t get fooled again, by the Who.

          • Vladimir

            The point is, you have expressed some strong opinions on energy policy when your very own statements betray a complete lack of knowledge of the subject.

            You stated above the belief that neither the states nor the federal government is only entitled to revenue from offshore oil production – or, only to the extent that they do “work” to earn it. Who do you think owns offshore minerals?

            The fact is that 100% of offshore oil (in the federal zone) belongs to the federal government. They lease those rights to qualified private entities in exchange for an 18.75% share of production. In 2006, the rules were changed to share 3/8ths of that with adjoining states. Right now, that’s just a trickle of revenue.

            Louisiana has pledged all of its share will be spent on the restoration of its coastal zone, which arguably has been deteriorated in part by the pipelines & marine traffic. This is not just in Louisiana’s interest, it is in the national interest.

            “All this really sounds like to me is that the Pro-LA folks may want to join in the under-the-table corruption for their own purposes.” Am I supposed to take this dig personally? It’s a complete non-sequitur. There is nothing in the article or the OP about anything “under-the-table”.

            I’m guessing you’re either from New England or from the Left Coast. There are lots of energy experts both places.

          • jccbin

            You are talking about the laws as they currently stand, passed by the scumbags in Washington.
            I am talking about natural law, that says if you find it, produce it, it is yours.
            I understand that you may want to frame this in the terms of current law, but I don’t think that is necessary in this debate. Take a step back from it and look at what I am saying. If YOU find a stack of IBM stock certificates in the wall of your family home, the IRS wants their part of the sales proceeds when you sell them. You will happily argue that the tax laws are in needs of change because they are. I am arguing the same point when it comes to resource rights in the open gulf. Just because there is a law that says its theirs, doesn’t mean it SHOULD be theirs.
            I’m talking about PROPERTY rights, not sausage laws put together by corrupt congresses of the past.
            And I am from Alabama, the gulf coast of Alabama and take horrid offense that you accuse me of being a lefty anything.

          • Vladimir
          • blooch

            and with the wrong people. Let it go. The back of my Social Security card says, “not to be used for identification purposes”, yet, here we are.

          • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

            Now Art’s rolling him through broken glass.

            I knew I should have grabbed some popcorn…

          • blooch

            “disgustedamerican”, or something. I felt a little pity for the guy for just a minute, as he fed himself to Art.

            Must be some new Saturday night ritual going on.

          • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

            I think that was the handle. As for the thing he typed out it was probably a self-portrait after Art’s steamroller went over him.

          • blooch

            Art’s latest midnight snack has a little trouble with “Reply to This”.

          • Achance
          • jccbin

            I don’t support Ron Paul. Never have. I don’t agree with his ideas. Yet, you biased, closedminded policy wonks have insulted me to no end.

            You are the biased ideologues here.

            I rest assured that, should Republicans win in 2010, we will be out again in 2012, thanks to the “gotta steal mine,” attitude expressed here.

            You can’t be right, because you are sooooo wrong.

          • Richard Mullins

            You might want to look in the mirror first before replying like that.

          • americanmale

            No way is Obama going to give any of that money to Jindal. Not only will chicago see more of the moneys obtained from licensing fees, i bet Obama figures out a way to funnel the money directly to New Orleans, totally bypassing Jindal, such that he (Obama) looks like a knight in shining armour to the folks of New Orleans.

          • jccbin

            nt

          • Michael Dugas

            nt

          • Achance

            Oil under the OCS is the common wealth of the US. Your position is that it should be given to any entity that sticks a drill in it because they bought the drill. My position, and I think Vladimir’s though I won’t speak for him, is that the oil below the OCS has value and its development has costs. The only question is whether the US gets all the value and LA absorbs all the costs or whether LA gets some of the value. If that’s hard for you, you’re too stupid to engage in political and economic discussions.

          • jccbin

            When I build a PC server, it is mine. When I sell it, it becomes the customer’s. Yes, the government gets its piece of the action, in taxes, fees, etc. But the product is mine or the customers.

            The point you tried to make, was that the gov’t gets a piece of the action from the get-go, because of common wealth of the nation. Again, that’s fine. That’s the law.

            What I’m really asking is: Does government have this power legitimately? Do all things flow from government or are there things which are unalienable – such as property, that we willingly assign to government for safeguard and management? (Yes, we do).

            Then, doesn’t it behoove use to occasionally review how well the government is safeguarding our wealth, and take action if necessary?

            I think you were wrapped up in the process that you understand and know so well, that you missed my point about that very process being in need of scrutiny.

            Now you can call me more names if that makes you feel better.

          • Achance

            I think, read, and write very carefully, so don’t admonish me; you came to a gunfight with a dull knife.

            In the case of the Gulf, the US bought the territory from France, remember that Jefferson guy you were referring to. That territory was chattel to the US government, just like you buying a lot for future development. First it was all military districts, then territories, then states. The states’ territorial control goes out to three or, usually, twelve miles. Beyond that, the territory belongs to the US government out to treaty lines, usually 200 miles. In that zone between the states’ sovereignty and the territorial limit of the US, the property is the common wealth of the US; it belongs to all of us, fool. Were it not for the blood and treasure expended by the US in the War of 1812, the Mexican War, and the Civil War, even the Spanish American War, it would belong to some other country. Thus, the US claims it, owns it, leases it, and derives revenue from it. The only question here is whether it shares that revenue with Louisiana because LA has to deal with the impact of the infrastructure support of developing the field.

            Now some of us actually know something about both government and the oil industry. Those of you who don’t should perhaps choose another subject to argue about.

          • mbecker908

            if you’ve take PayPal I’ve got $10.

          • jccbin

            Are you guys a bunch of 12-year-olds on the playground?

          • Richard Mullins

            then why don’t you just leave . It’s just one of my friendly responses to you.

          • jccbin

            Who is apparently intimating that he will pay Moe or Neil to ban me or somehow threaten me with a rubber chicken in the cloak room.

            Again, Richard, you are choosing to not debate the philosophy, only the applied law as it stands. That’s fine. But it doesn’t address my point at all. I’m happy to agree to not discuss it, just because you guys don’t want to. All one had to say was that. The insults about my heritage, location, political affiliation were not necessary. But I’m sure they were fun for Achance, Vlad. I hope they enjoyed beating up on me, big men that they are.

          • mbecker908

            And your side was noted for the total losers you are.

            It really doesn’t matter whether anybody bans you, now it would be an act of kindness. You are only going be engaged on slow weekends, otherwise you’ve pretty well Hinz Rule’d yourself.

            Nobody insulted you, they just pointed out the facts.

          • mbecker908

            Well, certainly not for a lousy ten bucks. They’re not Democrats.

          • Richard Mullins

            It’s still a law on the books and until you go and make a compelling case for it’s repeal, it still the law. Philosophy don’t mean jack if there is a law on the books on mineral rights. As for not debating something, that’s something we don’t do here. You might want to debate it in an energy blog instead. As for any insult, you opened yourself to them, so take it like a man and not a mouse.

          • mbecker908

            mental masturbation without a strategy to overturn the existing law in question, and frankly, that’s where the left beats the crap out of us every time. They come up with a philosophy and then they put together a long term strategy to implement it. then they “debate” it.

            One of the problems I have with RonPaul™ and your ilk is that it’s all just blather. Paul has been a member of Congress for 20+ years and he hasn’t managed to get one other CongressCritter to join with him on a single issue. Nor has he (or you in the above thread) offered anything even remotely resembling a strategy to do anything other than make noise.

            You folks are a total waste of time, energy and money. Now, zip up and run along. Oh, and nice tooth.

          • Richard Mullins

            I guess the fact that it’s a lease from the federal government and not just an no man’s land. You might want to ask the other lease holders in that area first.

            Also, did you read that link from the Houston Chronicle I post earlier today? I hope you did and stop being so clueless when it comes to oil.

            Think about for a while. Some of us live in the Oil Capital of the World(Houston and the co-capital New Orleans).

          • Michael Dugas

            You never mentioned a WORD about working outside of existing laws until JUST this post. And fantasy is all well and good but if you think for a minute you’re going to some how write the government out of this you are nuts. And please, basically you are saying if I find something valuable on your land and I work or produce it it’s mine and you are out of luck.
            “I am talking about natural law, that says if you find it, produce it, it is yours.”
            Whose natural law is that I might ask?

          • jccbin

            Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, etc. The Founders of this country. They got it from Cicero.

            I didn’t say if you found something on MY or someone else’s land, it was yours. When an explorer discovers something, it is theirs. I was pointing out that, current treaties aside, BP did the work and the profit from that work should be theirs first. That’s all.

            Geez.

          • Vladimir

            So you would favor, Chinese or Russian companies claiming rights on U.S. soil (territorial seas) under “natural law”? You’ve gotta admit that sounds pretty nutty.

            Nobody has an unlimited right to drill, even on their own property. If Farmer Jones wants to drill an oil well on his South 40, even if he has clear title to the land, he is obliged to obtain a drilling permit from the state regulatory body. This is to ensure some measure of environmental protection so that he doesn’t contaminate his neighbors’ groundwater. In most jurisdictions he has to conform to minimum spacing requirements because the state has an interest in ensuring that mineral ownership laws are respected and unnecessarry wells aren’t being drilled. The state is also entitled to severance taxes (see above) from any oil and gas he sells, even though he owns it 100%.

            Oil resources are to be conserved and managed and developed in an orderly and environmentally responsible manner. Government has a legitimate oversight role in the process.

            Your way was tried up until the 1920s or so & it didn’t work out so hot:

  • louisiana
  • blooch

    Must have been some monster prehistoric Graboids under LA, but they were pikers compared to the ones on the ground there now. Go, Bobby!

  • BlueStateSaint

    It just takes a whole lot more effort to get it, that’s all.