[PrairieRoot]

I’m calling BS on the reasoning behind this article. Otherwise, why would these oil companies be spending millions in leases, millions in drilling, millions in related infrastructure, if their wasn’t much oil to be had?

[Tallguy]

Otherwise, why would these oil companies be spending millions in leases, millions in drilling, millions in related infrastructure, if their wasn’t much oil to be had?

I can't answer that, but my in-Laws have a farm in northcentral Pennsylvania where they leased the mineral rights to an natural gas driller for a number of years. There is no indication that the property will be, or will ever be, drilled. But the mere fact that the lease was purchased suggests that it is worth it to them to get it under contract.

[colorado tanker]

There is a lot of oil to be had up there, just not 400 billion barrels. It’s a very tight formation from what I’ve read.

[thackney]

I’m calling BS on the reasoning behind this article. Otherwise, why would these oil companies be spending millions in leases, millions in drilling, millions in related infrastructure, if their wasn’t much oil to be had?

Because it doesn't need to be 400 billion barrels to be worth drilling. 3.6 billion is still more than worthwhile and has been the cause of significantly increased drilling and leases for several years before this report was even released.