Boy, I wish I had more time to dismantle that article. It is so loaded with hypocrisy, propoganda, irony, and just plain inaccurate data and depictions of the current state of the oil and gas industry's environmental practices, etc.

Just for starters, what about state's rights? This is Federal land, is it not. Just a guess, but if instead, the state's position had been to promote drilling on the acreage to improve their local economy and provide jobs, all of the environmental groups would be lobbying the Federal government to step in and take the control of the land from the state. States rights wouldn't mean squat to them then. It was just a convenient angle for those opposed to the BLM action.

Speaking from experience in my state, that is exactly what happened here. North Dakota has been struggling to keep quality jobs in this area and increase state revenues to support the infrastructure for our states residents. The energy sector creates many high paying jobs and pays substantial taxes into the state coffers. The Federal government, by way of a Presidential decree, disregarded the state objections and made a large fraction of the prime Federal acreage into roadless areas, despite the fact there are roads, residences, existing oil and gas wells, etc., already there. That type of Federal usurping of state's rights is far more the norm than that mentioned in the article.

Monte is on the right tract (not just the Right one) on this matter. This piece seemed to me to be a politically motivated planted article and hypocritical in ways mentioned by Monte.

New Mexico is like California in having lots of land tied up under BLM responsibilities and interests while elsewhere the Forest Service and Park system might manage the resources with other kinds of interests and goals in mind.

What alse would Carol post...:0........

Of course, every time public lands are opened to drilling, that means competition for us private landowners that own mineral lands, driving down the price we might receive for our assets. This administration seems determined to trample economic opportunities for private citizens by opening up publicly-owned assets to companies that would otherwise pay us more. And since these companies tend to pay lower royalties to the government (generally only a 1/8 interest where in my area we always receive at least 3/16), that's lost tax money to federal coffers.

Spewey,

I see two problems with your analogy. First of all, for it to be a fair market comparison, both parcels of land would have to possess the same potential for producing hydrocarbons and be in the same market. This information is often not public knowledge, and in fact is often speculative in nature.

If the Federal land is perceived to have greater potential for producing oil and gas, it will recieve a higher price at a lease sale than your land, if you are in that same market. Alternatively, if you possess the prime land, you will obtain more for your land.

Oil companies drill where they believe the greatest potential exists for finding oil and gas, not where the cheapest leases are located. If that were the case, all drilling would occur far from any geologic structures or other indicators of oil and gas potential and lease prices are very low.

Similarly, those acres with greater potential for producing oil and gas will probably be more likely to have successful wells drilled. Successful wells pay royalties, dry holes do not. Given the choice between paying 3/16th royalty on a producer on your land with less drilling risk and 1/8 royalty on a duster in property with a high failure risk, the oil company's exploration manager would be kicking rocks if he drilled a high risk dry hole well just to save the 1/16 royalty. Basically, from the oil company's persepctive, 13/16th of something beats 7/8th of nothing any day of the week.

No matter how cheaply the Federal leases go or how low the royalty percentage, if there are better places to drill, that is where you will find the drill bit turning to the right.