Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
"Exxon and Chevron have no credibility", o.k., how can I take anyone seriously when they make that kind of a statement.
I understand disagreeing on issues, interpretations of facts, etc. I know people can lie, exaggerate, politically, grand stand, etc., but to say that they have no credibility basically means that no one should do business with them, including Irwin. Perhaps he would have more trust in foreign controlled oil companies. Personally I would never do business, would not even think about doing business with a person or firm who I thought had no credibility. Please clarify - was Irwin being untruthful? Is that what you believe? What should the consequences be of having that belief?
|
ace, considering this:
ace, this is displayed in the first quote box in my last post:
Quote:
...Chevron Corp (CVX.N), which holds a 25 percent stake in Point Thomson, vowed to sue over the decision.
"We are shocked and very disappointed by this decision," Scott Davis, the Chevron executive overseeing its Alaska business, said in a statement. "With this decision the state has taken a giant step backward in bringing North Slope gas to market."
Point Thomson, discovered in 1977, is thought to hold at least 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves and 200 million barrels of liquids and would be a vital source of supply for any Alaska natural gas pipeline project.
The state has accused the oil companies of deliberately delaying development of Point Thomson. The majors reject that charge, saying the giant gas field cannot be put into production until a pipeline is constructed to ship Alaska gas to the rest of the United States.
Field operator Exxon owns about 36 percent of Point Thomson, and BP Plc (BP.L) owns 32 percent of the field.
<h2>The Alaska Department of Natural Resources ruling said Exxon's failure to develop the field under 22 previously submitted development plans compromised the credibility of its latest proposal.</21>
"The history of this unit and the evidence offered by the Appellants have convinced me that approving the (development plan) will not result in timely development of these valuable state lands," DNR Commissioner Tom Irwin wrote....
....The state so far has been successful in early legal battles. Officials concede that a lengthy period of litigation may ensue.....
|
ace, this is displayed in the second quote box in my last post:
Quote:
.........Exxon raised the specter of a financial claim at the same time the company and its Point Thomson partners -- BP , Chevron and ConocoPhillips -- formally asked state Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Irwin to reconsider his rejection of the latest Point Thomson development plan.......
........ Irwin's April 22 decision to reject the 23rd Point Thomson development plan was the latest official action taken by the state to revoke leases at the field where state leaders say oil company inaction justifies repossession of that state property.
The unit, created in 1977 and containing leases that date back to the 1960s, holds 8 trillion to 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and hundreds of millions of barrels of condensates and oil, according to state officials.
<h2>No well has been drilled at Point Thomson since 1982. State officials consider Exxon, the operator of the unit, and the other Point Thomson partners to be in gross violation of lease obligations.</h2>
While the natural gas cannot be commercialized without a highly expensive and yet-to-be-built gas pipeline, state officials have long maintained that Point Thomson's liquids can be produced......
|
ace, this is displayed in the fourth quote box in my last post:
Quote:
...If, for example, Sourdough were developed and produced on the state side and the feds don't hold a lease sale for their side of the reservoir, legal experts say the federal government probably couldn't claim any revenue from federal oil drained from Sourdough's state leases.
<h2>In his April 22 rejection of Exxon's plan of Point Thomson development, Tom Irwin, state commissioner of natural resources, made it clear that the Palin administration, like those that preceded it, wants a commitment to produce Point Thomson's "considerable oil reserves," including the discoveries at Sourdough and Flaxman adjacent to ANWR.</h2> (Other wells along the border in Point Thomson also might hold oil, but not all well results have been made public.) If the state ultimately prevails in court and takes back Exxon and other oil company's leases at Point Thomson, the state could sell leases to the field again.
BP and Chevron received permission to drill Sourdough from Point Thomson operator Exxon in the early 1990s. BP subsequently drilled two wells in the prospect, which lies in the southeast corner of the Point Thomson unit, adjacent to the Staines River that runs along the border between ANWR and Point Thomson.
ANWR's coastal-plain area is roughly a half mile from the Sourdough discovery well....
|
Can you see why I suspect that you either aren't seriously interested in discussing the crux of the thread...that the major oil companies are demonstrably uncommitted to investing in, exploring for, and extracting, refining, and distributing as much petroleum product as they could reasonably accomplish, if they made doing so a top priority....and if that is so, it is up to the US government, as the Alaskan state government is doing....to intervene and get production ramped up?
Or....can you sincerely post that you don't understand what Alaskan commissioner Tom Irwin is saying, doing, and WHY?
Do you understand that the oil companies' record of non-performance, next door to ANWR, in proven petroleum fileds, is an indication that "opening" ANWR to petroleum exploration is mostly a politcal game, and not what Cal Thomas's article describes it as?