belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,453
You're 100% right. Its the environmental groups that are making the biggest stink about it and they sure as heck don't give a crap about jobs unless they're green jobs.
People from Missoula
- Thread starter Nemont
- Start date
You're 100% right. Its the environmental groups that are making the biggest stink about it and they sure as heck don't give a crap about jobs unless they're green jobs.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,453
Classic pie-in-the-sky liberalism. I'll agree with that statement, but lets come back to the real world Ben. Sure, we'd all like a good diversified economy, but is that going to happen now? Not with out a lot of time and work. I'd much rather take the here-and-now and do something to increase oil production in North America. We can sit around all day thinking of good ideas, but if they are so difficult to implement, they don't do us any good.
Nemont
Well-known member
Ben,
I am not calling for a well on every quarter section. We outsource nearly all our manufacturing so crying about where the equipment was built while driving Subaru's seems to be highly hypocritical. Do the same people complaining about the equipment being made in Korea also shop at Wal-Mart, KMart, Lowes, pick one.
Look across the border at North Dakota. It is Amazing that the oil only lies along the NoDak side of the Border. Again we should have regulation but there is something inherently wrong when one looks at where major facilities are located. Same goes for coal development on the MT/WY border. Nearly all the major infrastructure is built on the WY side of the border. Even though Montana is the "Saudi Arabia of Coal" we produce about 10% of what Wyoming does. In 2010 Wyoming produced 462 million tons of coal, MT produced about 45 millions tons.
I am not saying we should sell out to industry but with all the cry's for increased revenues and funding for services it seems we also stunt development. It is difficult to understand why oil and coal activity is higher right across the Montana border and that companies routinely choose to not build major facilities here when they locate them in a more business friendly state.
What is "responsible" development? Why can North Dakota have 200 rigs drilling just across the border and we have 10? Are you saying North Dakota allows irresponsible development? That is a state that doesn't even allow corporate ownership of farmland.
Nemont
I am not calling for a well on every quarter section. We outsource nearly all our manufacturing so crying about where the equipment was built while driving Subaru's seems to be highly hypocritical. Do the same people complaining about the equipment being made in Korea also shop at Wal-Mart, KMart, Lowes, pick one.
Look across the border at North Dakota. It is Amazing that the oil only lies along the NoDak side of the Border. Again we should have regulation but there is something inherently wrong when one looks at where major facilities are located. Same goes for coal development on the MT/WY border. Nearly all the major infrastructure is built on the WY side of the border. Even though Montana is the "Saudi Arabia of Coal" we produce about 10% of what Wyoming does. In 2010 Wyoming produced 462 million tons of coal, MT produced about 45 millions tons.
I am not saying we should sell out to industry but with all the cry's for increased revenues and funding for services it seems we also stunt development. It is difficult to understand why oil and coal activity is higher right across the Montana border and that companies routinely choose to not build major facilities here when they locate them in a more business friendly state.
What is "responsible" development? Why can North Dakota have 200 rigs drilling just across the border and we have 10? Are you saying North Dakota allows irresponsible development? That is a state that doesn't even allow corporate ownership of farmland.
Nemont
I don't disagree with any of this. But I would simply point out that not every Missoulian who is opposing this is a dope-smoking trustafarian. In fact, Hellgate Hunters and Anglers have taken an opposition to this. Not exactly the to-furkey crowd. The dichtomy of the hemp posse is only one part of this discussion, and keeping the focus squarely on them works politically, but it's just not the truth. A lot of people have concerns about this issue. Some of those concerns have merit.
NoDak, as I understand it, has the majority of the Baakken, and the highest concentration of deposits, which is why they are drilling there the most. You drill for the easiest recoverable deposit, then move on to the more marginal. Pipeline capacity also comes in to play. We don't have that capacity in MT yet, but the line is going to be built (again, an issue that MWF has not taken a position on, and probably won't), bringing greater capacity for MT's oil fields.
As for coal, WY is better environment for Coal Producers to work for a variety of issues, but I'm not as familiar will coal development as I am O&G (which, anymore is not that much). A large part of all commodities truly is market driven. If there is a surplus of coal, or the price isn't high enough to develop new mines, then they won't dig. MT did lease the Otter Creek Tracts, and the development of those tracts is being closely watched. Frankly, I don't have much interest in coal development, but a lot of ranchers and farmers have very valid concerns that need to be addressed.
GE is going to, or at least they announced that they would, build a wind turbine plant in MT. More and more businesses are relocating to MT, but remember, we're still trying to come out of a recession, and there hasn't been much increase in the development beyond what is already permitted. I really don't think we stunt development so much as we slow down the breakneck pace of development that a lot of companies want. Look at WY, and the Pinedale Anticline if you want an example of how not to expedite development. They've lost over 1/2 of the Wyoming Range Mule Deer Herd because of that development. So, we either slow down, do it right, and have a longer play, or we let the companies run rough-shod over the process and keep the boom and bust economy that O&G is so famous for.
With Montana's former regulatory environment (pre-legislative session), O&G development in MT was up 10 fold. I don't buy the argument that we're not developing our resources. The facts just don't show that.
I'm not familiar with NoDak's regulatory environment so I won't comment on that. As for what responsible development looks like, take a look at the Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development website and see what folks in the sporting community are looking at in terms of what responsible development looks like.
MT's economy is fairly diversified right now. Between Ag, tourism and resource development, and being one of the best places to start a small business, I don't see that as pie in the sky liberalism. I see that as a sound economy. WY's economy is primarily an export energy economy. When the bust comes, it craters the state. I lived through it, seen it happen, and know that if you don't have other industries, you end up a slave to one. Just like MT did w/ the mining industry in the early 20th century.
BTW - we have increased oil production in the US, exponentially. We've also increased Nat Gas development exponentially (we have a glut of NG right now). Besides, this if for production in Canada. Profits are not going to Americans, and we are left holding the bag to subsidize the industry that rakes in record profits each year. You want to end welfare? End corporate subsidies for O&G.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
I think we lost sight of the thread, maybe strayed a tad.
Shipping those 200+ loads across Montana is what the issue is. Is it safe, does it pose any environmental hazards? Does putting in the infrastructure cause any concerns? Is this a subsidy that the tax payers of the US are footing for a foreign company? These are all valid concerns that need addressing.
The majority of these shipments are headed to Alberta. You can't tell me that building them on site would cost more. Also, how would building them in Alberta cause anyone in Missoula harm?
I don't think anyone here was saying the projects should be stopped. What they made "OUR" business, we have the right to deal with and ask questions. I feel it's our right, and duty to ask questions, and act upon them, especially when we're dealing with a multi million dollar foreign corporation.
Shipping those 200+ loads across Montana is what the issue is. Is it safe, does it pose any environmental hazards? Does putting in the infrastructure cause any concerns? Is this a subsidy that the tax payers of the US are footing for a foreign company? These are all valid concerns that need addressing.
The majority of these shipments are headed to Alberta. You can't tell me that building them on site would cost more. Also, how would building them in Alberta cause anyone in Missoula harm?
I don't think anyone here was saying the projects should be stopped. What they made "OUR" business, we have the right to deal with and ask questions. I feel it's our right, and duty to ask questions, and act upon them, especially when we're dealing with a multi million dollar foreign corporation.
smarandr
Well-known member
I saw this article and remembered reading this thread last week; I suppose it's not true to the original purpose of the thread, but it's definitely veered of course anyway.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43389933/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43389933/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001
sweetnectar
New member
Years ago I worked for a company that brokered the shipping of a power plant that was built in Pueblo CO. I estimate that over 90% of that plant came from over seas. We trucked that sucker one load at a time from the port of Houston to Pueblo CO. I only remember a few loads coming from US based steel companies....and of course we shipped the cranes in from US locations. The funny thing about the cranes though is that I'm sure most of them were made over seas.
It is the same story with the wind farms we hauled.
For some reason it is more cost effective to make coke drums or power plants overseas, put them on big expensive ships, off load them in ship yards, truck them to location and assemble them.
I don't know if it has to do with law restrictions we have placed on ourselves, or US wage standards, or combinations of what ever but for what ever the reasons, we don't go build coke drums on site. I'm convinced we can't even build ourselves a power plant.
It is the same story with the wind farms we hauled.
For some reason it is more cost effective to make coke drums or power plants overseas, put them on big expensive ships, off load them in ship yards, truck them to location and assemble them.
I don't know if it has to do with law restrictions we have placed on ourselves, or US wage standards, or combinations of what ever but for what ever the reasons, we don't go build coke drums on site. I'm convinced we can't even build ourselves a power plant.
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
That is pretty funny considering Pueblo was built on the steel industry. Sad indeed.
