Good luck, Obie.

Nowhere in any of the materials you have copied is there any mention of the specific provisions for canceling a lease.

Whenever the lessee fails to comply with any of the provisions of the law, — this can mean almost anything: fraud. Failure to pay royalties due. Some kind of sub-lease that may not be allowed by the primary lease. No provision like this is described in the language you have presented, Obie. Nothing.

Then you’re trying to get away with confusing a provision for extending a lease with a provision for canceling a lease.

It’s not working for you, son. It’s really not working for you.

In a way, I hope you are being dishonest and trying to put something over on us. At least that would mean you’re clever enough to know what’s going on. The alternative is too sad to think about. I’d hate to think of you sitting at home, getting more and more frustrated because you can understand why no one buys your story, and you can’t even understand our explanations why we don’t buy it.

I can see you’re going BIG on the McBush point system – if you’re lucky, you’ll get a lifesized inflatable McBush, complete with a rohypnol and a condom.

“It’s like a dream come true…”

And those provisions are…?

Jeezus, it’s like pulling teeth with you. I finally get you to copy a section that at least mentions “cancellation”, but you still haven’t shown where a lease can be cancelled for failure to drill, which was your contention.

When I do, I link, and quote.

But this isn’t about me. I know you’d like it to be, but it isn’t. It’s about you and your willingness to copy-and=paste a portion of a statute that doesn’t say what you claim it says, and your strange unwillingness to go back to the same statute and copy-and-paste the section that would prove that the claim you made over six hours ago isn’t a crock of shit.

obamagr8 Says:
Curious indeed.

What is curious is your habit of never actually taking a stand. Your tactic appears to be yelling, “Prove it!” on any point that catches your fancy without providing any evidence of your own.

I’d ask you to provide links or data but you haven’t done anything except give the occasional reacharound to one of your tag team buddies.

Man up!

Not sure where you’re getting me “yelling” about anything. Obie.

I notice that, rather than search the statute and come back with the relevant section that proves your point, you’ve tried to make this about me.

Again, curious.

Personally, when I have a good point to make and someone disputes it, I really enjoy finding solid evidence and presenting it triumphantly, in context and with a link.

But that’s me…

Speaking of forgetting, I notice that several folks made some erroneous claims and then just disappeared.

Good lord, you mean there are people who don’t sit in front of a PC all day, banging away on blogs!?

Maybe if the rest of us actually got paid for this . . .

obamagr8 Says:
Jayzus, maybe I gave you too much credit.

1. The Democrats and Obama have repeatedly claimed there are 68 million acres of land that the oil companies have not drilled. They have not released any data on these leases; nobody has any idea if the number is accurate, how long these leases have been held, or if there is any potential for oil development on those lands.
2. I took a quick look around, and from what I can see, there is a lot of land in the Rocky Mountain states leased that I suspected oil shale. My guess is that’s one reason why the oil companies are not developing some of the leases that they hold.
3. What does that have to do anything? The Democrats and Obama save the oil companies should drill – but they are going to drill where they know there is oil shale. They don’t need to, what they need to do is wait until extraction processes become economically viable. If that exceeds the time limit on their leases, then the MMS can deal with it.
4. I provided you extensive links on laws that are currently on the books that deal with termination of oil leases. You can investigate those links, you can look up the laws in question.
5. Contrary to your last claim, title 30, subsection 188 ANB of the United States code speaks specifically about how leases can be forfeited and cancelled

Well, Obie, you have to remember, I don’t speak Troll as well as I should. So I’m bound to take a while to catch up to what passes for your reasoning.

Again, your oil shale material is a total dodge. You “took a quick look around” and you suspect that the land leased in the Rockies is for oil shale.

For some reason, this evidence does not convince me, just like the Democrats’ claim of 68 million acres doesn’t convince you. Why do you think I should be convinced by less persuasive arguments than those you have dismissed already?

You provided me with ‘extensive links” to laws that deal with termination of leases. Considering you made the claim that the leases were subject to termination if not explored, I’d think you’d be want to demonstrate its truth, rather than relying on me to hunt down the laws and explore the legal language.

In fact, I find it a little strange that you were able to cite chapter and verse and excerpt the “bone of contention” sweet spot above, yet what you pulled says nothing about termination of a lease.

My last claim said simply: “your “bone of contention” cut-and-paste says nothing about losing a lease.”

There is nothing contrary to that claim in either the paragraph you pasted, or the questionable information you have supplied since. I didn’t claim that Title 30, Subsection 226(e) of the United States Code says nothing about it. I said that the piece you chose to copy says nothing about it.

Again, what I find curious is, why did you go to the trouble to chase down that provision, copy a section of it and paste it here, but you didn’t paste the section that you say supports your contention?

Curious indeed.

Thanks. That’s what i thought.

And your “bone of contention” cut-and-paste says nothing about losing a lease. It just talks about extending it. From the language you posted, the lease could be presumably be renewed, which is different from an extension. it says nothing about termination. Nothing in that paragraph supports your “use it or lose it” contention.

As I said before, your handling of information hasn’t earned you a reputation as a trustworthy source.

But beyond that, how does oil shale have anything to do with the legalities of the leases in question?

Again, you seem to say that their renewal depends on production. gummitch offered an article that said something very different.

obamagr8 Says:

Or the third and correct option: The oil companies hold leases for a given period of time and then either produce oil or turn them back.

Wrong. They hold the leases for a given amount of time, that’s correct. But then, that’s correct with all leases.

You seem to be saying that whether those leases are renewed or not depends on whether they’ve produced or not. The article gummitch provided seems to say the opposite. Can you back up your contention using sources other than GOP websites, right-wing sites or extraction industry sites?

thanks.

I have to say thanks for making the effort to substantiate your arguments–I really mean that. But do yourself a favor, don’t use PowerLine or the GOP sites as your sources—I don’t think any of the TP-ers here use Democratic Party websites to make their major arguments–”comnon” sources are the norm.

The Reuters source was good direct link, though apparently you didn’t think too much about it’s content before linking to it. Going to your Powerline source provided a link to their EIA source which Powerline seriously bastardized which you used.
In this environment where you are outnumbered and where the regulars here have a common broad encyclopedic knowledge-base derived from often non-partisan sources, I’d suggest you take a bit more time and consider your sources and your arguments a bit more carefully before you comment here–that way everyone;s time will be better served and we all might learn something valid that we didn’t know or appreciate before.

obamagr8 Says:
How many cases? You wouldn’t be dishonest enough to imply that a few isolated cases represent a significant portion of these leases, would you?

Depends on your definition of significant. Oil companies spent $2 billion on Beaufort Sea and $2.7 billion on the Chukchi Sea. The Beaufort Sea is some million acres and the Chukchi is 2.66 million acres.

I’d call that significant but your mileage may vary – depending on your tire inflation.

I see… so, assuming your facts and figures are correct (and there’s no reason to assume they are, as you haven’t been very trustworthy with your handling of facts and figures so far, but let’s pretend) then your contention is that 3.66 million acres out of 68 million is “significant”.

Somehow I suspect that in another context — say as a percentage of energy supply that could be provided by wind, say — 3.6 out of 68 you would not find so significant.

Just a suspicion I hold.