Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dan Warfield on March 23, 2012 at 5:56pm

Ripley;

I did hear that the Amish were considering camels for their summer work in 2012... they said they didn't have to stop in the mid morning, lunch or mid afternoon to water them like they do their horse's.  Good thinking...wonder if they learned that at Yoder State University or Yoder Dame?

You pose a good question Ripley, but adding to your question... if the Marcellus and Utica plays are so good and such a good investment, why haven't the Saudi's, the Iranians, the Iraqies, Qatar, and other middle eastern oil and gas producing countries doing joint ventures with the US based O&G companies?  An investment is an investment... correct?  If you were wanting to "control" the market over a period of time, wouldn't you buy a controling share in many of these shale plays across the USA?  Maybe they don't need the money?  Maybe they don't care?  Maybe they are already investing (heavily) in the shale plays through intermediaries...possibly through the French, the Chinese?

I'm fairly certain that an expert on GMS will explain how the O&G leasing process started in the middle eastern countries...heck, maybe the populations over there don't actually own anything... except camel dung and a stick to beat the camel with?

It would be kind of strange to see an Amish buggy, hay wagon or a plow being pulled by a camel...that would be worth a picture. 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on March 23, 2012 at 6:46pm

Understanding that most marcellus shale and other shale leases have flimsy 'assign' clauses (i say flimsy cause all anyone who holds the lease has to do is assign it in their sale of the great buy that they achieved from the original owner of the mineral, gas, oil resources.  

Example...So if Chesapeake sells the lease shares to China, India, etc......unless the contract with cheasapeake states that the new owners of those shares cannot sell their shares to the Saudi's, the Iranians, and other middle eastern oil and gas companies ....THEN THERE IS NOTHING THAT THE OWNER OF THE RESOURCES CAN DO if the new assigned owners of the lease shares decides to make profit also with selling again their investment in the lease.   Effectively when anyone states that the USA can be energy dependent on their own resources that may or may not be true...it may be the resources of America but surely with the sales (and numerous they are) to foreign countries (even non-citizens) of the leases themselves....many Americans may end up purchasing oil and gas from other countries of their own lands here in America.  

even as we talk these things are going on....I wonder how much now of our leases are actually owned by US investors in hopes that most of our resources don't go into long lease holdings with other countries (especially when we really do not know who ultimately will own the lease)....I am not kidding ..this is a very serious issue.

I know that there are joint international ventures with other companies overseas and much in Texas and a few other states...but now we're talking a huge area of marcellus and utica shale and in people's yards not necessarily rural...and at a time when we cannot even trust someone to fly on a plane anymore without serious security measures.   Non-citizens can purchase our lands in America, our mortgages, and now even our natural resources....we do not have rules in place to protect this nation regarding these types of sales....most countries don't easily allow non-citizens of their countries to purchase into such without some strict overseeing.  We may have started this country with immigrants but surely found over time that having citizenship was essential to maintain our country and begin our own heritage and culture as a new nation.   Now what we have is illegal immigrants having the same rights (and sometimes even more rights) than U.S. citizens.   In China the individual landowner cannot receive royalties or even the lease on their land...it goes to the government of China....don't you think that if they could they would just as soon not have the owner as part of the deal here in America as they purchase more and more of our leases?   Not to say that they would war...but they understand in their system that the individual is not as important as the government ...this is what has typically been a different philosophy and way of life that makes America and China different.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by paleface on March 24, 2012 at 9:02am

Your lease should say the lessor has to sign for approval of assigned .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on March 24, 2012 at 11:25am

that kind of situation is now being recognized as worthy to look into the assigns clause...and can be beneficial for the Lessor in many ways.....but it wasn't done in many many contract leases already.

The other concern is that you don't want to limit your lessee from being able to find funds...you just want to be involved since it is your property that they are discussing...and some oil companies don't even bother to tell a landowner or royalty owner that they are in a unit....so the accountability of adding something to the 'assigns' clause to cause the lessee to report to the Lessor is an excellent way of keeping up with what is happening on one's own property.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on March 24, 2012 at 9:24am

RE: "Saudi's rode Camel's till EXXON and SHELL came to the rescue??!!"

Actually this is not quite true.

It was Socal (now Chevron), Texaco, Standard Oil of New Jersey (EXXON) and Socony Vacuum (Mobil).

And most Saudi's were not riding Camels; most were too poor to afford Camels, they rode Donkeys.

;-)   JS

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on March 24, 2012 at 11:22am

interesting topic you have started here Ripley.....I went to see what history info I could get and Jack's input about Socal helped,....now I am finding that Saudi Arabia had MUCH to do with forming some of our US companies...didn't know that.  I guess the question now is how much of the stock does the Saudi's maintain of what we refer to as U.S. companies?

read some history at this link:

http://countrystudies.us/saudi-arabia/40.htm   it even goes as far as explaining the original bargaining amounts and time of the leases.

an exerpt:

 The name of the operating company in Saudi Arabia was changed to Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco) in January 1944. Two partners, Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (later renamed Exxon) and Socony-Vacuum (now Mobil Oil Company), were added in 1946 to gain investment capital and marketing outlets for the large reserves being discovered in Saudi Arabia. These four companies were the sole owners of Aramco until the early 1970s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motiva_Enterprises  (what we refer to as Texaco)

now read the history about Chevron...this is quite an interesting discovery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_Corporation

and at this link is more info from the fed. trade board

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2001/09/chevtex.shtm  (interesting that this proposed order happened just days before the 9/11 tradgedy....so with some research we could find out if they did what they were asked.

So now I am fully convinced that there really isn't a weaning off Saudi....it may be a weaning off of Saudi oil but from what I am learning about who owns what...there is much to do with the Saudis over here in America even at ownership of gas/oil stock and leases.

So now we can almost fully say that the Saudi's most likely bought the camels for Exxon and Shell and they are all riding those camels together now.

• ▶ Reply