Speculation: Conspiracy or Corincidence?

You might be surprised at how 'cheap' a Federal oil lease really is. All of the Federal AND State leases in Alaska would cost less than a billion dollar for any one corporation to own.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

All of the Federal AND State leases in Alaska would cost less than a billion dollar for any one corporation to own.

Perhaps the 68 million unexplored acres under lease is true? I should think each lease would expire after 10 years if no well is drilled. I assume the US and Alaska would receive a royalty for any oil pumped on their leases? I have been told 1/8th is the standard royalty paid to the owner.

Explain the distinction between an Alaska lease and a Federal lease, if you please.

The State of Alaska leases its own land to the oil companies for five years. There is no language in State or Federal leases that makes drilling mandatory. Our very plucky Governor wants to change that. She's got State lawyers in court now to take back existing leases. This case will go to the U.S. Supreme court, which will NOT rule in her favor. In the future, Alaskan oil leases will have new language to cover this contingency.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

The State of Alaska leases its own land to the oil companies for five years. There is no language in State or Federal leases that makes drilling mandatory. State lawyers [are] in court now to take back existing leases. This case will go to the U.S. Supreme court, which will NOT rule in [Alaska's] favor. In the future, Alaskan oil leases will have new language to cover this contingency.

You have broadened my knowledge base, Mr J/O.

You have also offered a prediction how the current US Supreme Court will decide Alaska's legal effort to reclaim the unused oil leases. If the issue comes down to RICH versus POOR you have seen how the current SC will vote YEA for rich ExxonMobil and NAY for the poor damaged souls. Is it not a truism the Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer? Or put shorter, "Them that has gits?"

OTOH, you are in good company with the current SC and their (genetic) aversion for a strong central government. No lead paint inspectors them. No e.coli lookers them. No lending rules for mortgages them. But you know my litany. So if the issue arrives in W-DC as one between Federal rules and STATES RIGHTS, you may want to HEDGE your bet! Ha!

For really good reasons all our courts high and low are very reluctant to ALTER or MODIFY public or private contracts after the fact. Law schools generally teach that the right of contract is sacrosanct. Well, as far as a secular power can make it.

Notwithstanding near privity* to GOD, the survival of the commonweal would perforce overrule a contract. Like the state's unilateral power to quarantine for contagious disease. And of course, NO contract can violate public policy - whatever that is. That could mean for example that a contract signed in one state that allowed 33% interest would be unenforceable in the courts of another state that allowed only 12% interest as contrary to public policy. It also permitted NJ to refuse to extradite an escaped but law abiding man to GA to finish his time on a chain-gang. Chain-gangs being contrary to NJ public policy.

So you ask, "Are you saying we're back to ground zero in the matter of contracts?" "Not exactly" I reply, but you better be very careful how you draw a contract in the first place or you may find others telling you what it means.


*Recall this one speaking of the Boston Blue Bloods (400): "The Lodges speak only to the Cabots, the Cabots speak only to GOD."


[edit on 7/9/2008 by donwhite]

It will take a long time for this thing to work itself out...but...I am confident that my own State's legal protections will be improved by the end of the next decade. The Federal precedent that comes out of this will put individual States on their guard, as the should have been from the start.

In the future, when States negotiate resource leases, they will go out of theri way to put in due dilligence clauses. For those who don't know, that means these agreements will have in them language that specifies the lease holder's "intent" to develope the resource contained in the leased lands.

In the decades to come, this will be a major sticking point for Federal officials and corporations. Stae leaders will be glad that this ruling is on the books.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

It will take a long time for this thing to work itself out ... but ... I am confident that my own State's legal protections will be improved by the end of the next decade.

US Con. Art. 1, Sec. 9, Cl. 3: “No bill of attainder [assigning guilt of treason by Act of Congress instead of by judicial determination] or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

There is more than one way to skin a cat. IF Congress was so minded the Congress could write laws that would make retaining undeveloped leases not only unprofitable but downright unpleasant.

I do not believe it would take to 2020 to write such laws if the public wanted the laws and was insistent on it. I should think the next session of each state’s legislature could accomplish that.

The Federal precedent that comes out of this will put individual States on their guard, as they should have been from the start. In the decades to come, this will be a major sticking point for Federal officials and corporations. State leaders will be glad that this ruling is on the books.

Recall on the back page of old time comic books there was the ad offering instant riches by participating in the periodic lottery for oil leases. I have quit reading comic books so I’m not aware if that remains the method of “auctioning” off the Federal leases. I wold not be surprised to learn that under Bush43 and the VP Cheney (secret) Energy Policy that the Big Oil just write to the Energy Department with a copy to the Interior Department TELLING them which leases they will TAKE and at what price they will PAY. All of which will have the blessing of the Bush43 father and son team. The Bush L E G A C Y to America!

I do fuly expect to see a number of anti-speculation measures to be put through hte next Congress. They will make for good politics, and; they might actually do some good. It's worth noting that there are still a lot of con men out there running Federal land swindles. Once upon a time, I had a hand in sending one of those weasels off to the big house.

reply to post by Justin Oldham

Once upon a time, I had a hand in sending one of those weasels off to the big house.

"Your Federal tax dollars at work." From signs formerly posted alongside any highway project involving Federal funds.

The 1950s Interstate System was 90/10, with the Feds putting up the BIG money. The predecessor national highway system, the so-called United States or US highway system was a 50/50 project that I believe began in the 1920s.

Without those 2 Federal systems we would have a patchwork system of roads with 50 variations on the theme. Instead of the BEST highway network in the whole durn world - contributing mightily to the economy - it would be the WORST system and a constant drag.

I have no doubt that the next Congress will attempt some reforms of the current system that alleges to monitor speculators. What do you think the next Congress will do first?

reply to post by Justin Oldham

I have no doubt that the next Congress will attempt some reforms of the current system that alleges to monitor speculators. What do you think the next Congress will do first.

Well, Rome was not built in a day! Nor did everything that’s wrong today happen overnight. It all took a long time to get from there to here. Gas prices are the most visible but the least likely to respond favorably to short term actions. The housing market and associated financial institutions are not as visible but are far more consequential over the medium term. The War on Terror in all its manifestations must be dealt with. Federal deficits (and tax policy) pose huge long term risks. Regulatory agencies have been neutered. Sweet Jesus! Come Quick!

So what do you do first when you wake up and find the whole house is on fire? Well, obviously, you want to get out, but as they say, “getting out is not an option.” Well as I said. If it was up to me I’d put on the following priorities:

1) Address the housing and associated financial institutions.
2) Gasoline prices and public hearings aimed at reorganizing and staffing the CFTC - the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. Weigh using the NSR - National Strategic Reserve to burst the oil bubble.
3) War on Terror. First, close Guantanamo Bay. Iraq. There are signs Iraq may "cure" itself if we will just leave it alone for a few more weeks. Afghan. Either give it up or let the international force take charge! Our man there Hamud Karzi has less than 20% local support. The allies will not let us keep up our looney-tunes policy at the rising cost to their soldiers lives.

My wish list:
Abolish the DNI - the so-called czar of intelligence - the Director of National Intelligence.
Abolish the DHS. Department of Homeland Security. Restore all the agencies to their old departments.
Declare the War on Terror WON and OVER. Give Bush43 the Medal of Freedom.

Then we could sit back, take a good look around the world and around our country, ask our friends for advice and take some of it for a change and make plans WITHIN our budget.

[edit on 7/11/2008 by donwhite]

Don't panick, but I agree with everyting you just said. I think we're gonna have to take a lot of pain before you get your wishes, though. In the same way that the House committee on UnAmerican activities was dissolved only after it had caused much harm...DHS and other agencies will only leave us after they've ruined more lives.

The problem is that average Joe investors don't know when the price of (enter item ) is being driven up by demand and when the price is being being artificially inflated by people continuing to pay the higher prices rather then waiting for the market to settle . This happened with the housing market world wide and natural caused the housing crash . The disturbing thing is that the banks weren't any smarter then average Joe investor.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by xpert11]

I'm interested to know what Don think about the IndyMac bankfailure. I am asking this quesiton as it relates to speculators? Will they act out of fear becasue of this event? Ir, will they do something else? I'm interested to know Don's take, based on what he's seen in his long life.

the state of "speculation" seems to have changed somewhat. I suspect that some speculator are trying to get out of the markets before Congress gets tempted to clean house. Some are possibly getting out now in order to clean up their paper train before the end ofthe year. They may expect the next administration to come down on speculation very hard. Could be some with hunts mixed in with some of the real investigations.

We should also consider that investors are getting out now while they still can. Here in the U.S., we're stilling losing banks, and the housing crisis shows no end in sight. Interesting to note that credit wors seem to be getting worse, rather than tapering off as industry analysist suggested. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that we've got tough times ahead.