The question is how can we be sure exactly how much these suits are truly to blame, and how much other factors, like not having our own Permian, are.

I'm TELLING you, your statement that "Shallow water rigs is a great barometer for the situation because" is simply wrong, full stop.

If you want Louisiana activity to be a barometer for the impact of these suits, then you'd need to be able to compare a change in LA activity levels to activity levels elsewhere that is otherwise totally similar.

Yet you point out yourself that this is impossible because "obviously all of their work falls in Louisiana waters". Sorry, but you don't just get to say that LA activity went down and we have to believe it's all for this reason, especially in the midst of shale's newfound dominance.

If you're actually concerned about accurately testing the validity of your assertion, what I am saying should be completely uncontroversial.

quote:
Huh? You can't be that dumb

You're the one who said in an unqualified manner that they followed the law. If that's the case, why should anyone be worried about the outcome of the suit?

quote:
When my guys rigs aren't working, that s 400 guys minimum not working. I'm just not able yo follow your line of thinking.

Honestly it seems you don't even understand your own argument, let alone why it is failing to hold up here. The question at issue is precisely WHY they are not working where they are not working.

quote:
If they drilled more wells, they would negligently be putting their companies at more unknown risk because the procedures to drill would be exactly the same..so if by some chance they are found liable, they would be more liable with new wells.

The important question here is whether the responsibility that these companies bear is unclear per current law. And if it is, that is a separate issue than the suits- it's an issue of current law!

The suits all deal with actions far in the past, so why would they cause any additional "risk" to new activity? Unless the companies are foregoing making money on otherwise profitable activity in order to apply political pressure.

quote:
I'll dumb it down for you. Imagine if thenlimit of ducks is 6. And this year they drop it to 4. So for 20 years you've been properly permitted by all federal and state permitting agencies and totally legal to kill 6. But the day the law changed, a wildlife agent showed up to arrest you and fine you millions of $$ because the 6 ducks you've been killing every hunt violates the new limit of 4, therefore you're deemed to be illegal for those prior 20 years.

Would that seem fair to you? Would you trust the state laws after that?

Your argument then is that these suits literally change the law and furthermore apply it retroactively? I'd probably be willing to buy the argument that lax enforcement in the past and/or low damages in the past mean that what is happening now is an arbitrary targeting of the industry, but what you're saying is hard to believe to put it kindly.

I guess, great job convincing me that I should be even more skeptical of the industry's claims than I was already. I realize though that you're not a spox for the industry, and better arguments may be out there.

This post was edited on 3/6/18 at 10:28 am