0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fracking in the WestBig reserves, big reservationsCalifornia tries to decide if it wants to join the shale revolutionFeb 16th 2013 | SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA | From the print edition Timekeeper SHALE exploitation in North Dakota has lifted incomes and brought unemployment down to 3.2% of the workforce, the lowest level in the country. Californians are rarely found looking longingly towards the Midwest. But the revelation that their state, with unemployment at 9.8% and America’s highest poverty rate, may be sitting on the largest deposit of shale oil in the continental United States has led some to wonder if their salvation lies 10,000 feet (3,000 metres) beneath them.[img]http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20130216_USM973.png[img]California has been an oil state since 1865. Thanks largely to reserves that can still be tapped by conventional means, it remains the third-largest producer in the country. Output has lately been declining by 2-3% a year, according to the state’s Energy Commission. But in 2011 the federal Energy Information Administration declared that the Monterey shale formation, which spans 1,750 square miles (450,000 hectares) in southern and central California, held 15.42 billion barrels of recoverable oil, 64% of the total estimated to be in the 48 contiguous states.That should be an attractive prospect for a state with a history of unemployment and fiscal woe. But environmental scruples have long been as characteristic of California as budgetary mismanagement, and a battle is brewing. Opponents of the hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) technique often used to extract oil and gas from shale rock in “unconventional” drilling say regulations proposed by the state in December do not adequately protect against groundwater contamination or air pollution. Some mutter about earthquakes. Such concerns find receptive ears in a seismically active state with a large farm sector.The oilmen reply that fracking has been conducted in California for years without trouble. Moreover, they add, surely the environmentally concerned should want as much Californian oil as possible produced under the state’s tight regulations, rather than imported from places with looser regimes. Some see an emerging split between inland counties, which tend to have higher unemployment and more conservative politics, and the conservationists along the coast. The row will rumble on, with revised rules expected later this year.For some, the complex geology of the Monterey shale opens up alternative means of extraction. Santa Maria Energy, a small producer in Santa Barbara County, about 150 miles (240 km) north-west of Los Angeles, extracts 200 barrels of crude a day from the shale at depths of around 2,500 feet by exploiting natural fractures in the rock. Although the firm has no plans to begin fracking, David Pratt, its president, likes to say that the Monterey is California’s way out of the “fiscal toilet”.Some of the “Saudi America” talk is overdone. And even if California does begin exploiting the Monterey aggressively, an economic miracle is unlikely. California’s population is over 50 times bigger than North Dakota’s, and, as Kevin Klowden of the Milken Institute, a think-tank, points out, the opportunity costs of giving over land to drilling may be far higher in California than in some other states.No producer has yet found a way to begin large-scale extraction from the Monterey. But despite the geological and regulatory uncertainties, several firms have placed large bets on its future. And other states in the region sitting on shale reserves are forging merrily ahead. At a Senate hearing on February 12th John Hickenlooper, Colorado’s Democratic governor, staked out his position by announcing that he had once drunk a glass of fracking fluid.Meanwhile, the technology that kick-started the revolution marches on. Some speak excitedly of fracking that uses saline rather than fresh water, or no water at all. The industry has moved so quickly in recent years, says Dan Kirschner of the Northwest Gas Association, a trade body, that it is starting to seem odd to call shale resources “unconventional”.
Echo, what I've discovered from the Trademark website is that the Estate (more specifically, Triumph International) technically does not own the trademarks for Neverland or Neverland Ranch. If you read the 'TSDR' documents listed under the first 'dead' application (77811345), you will see that the estate kept requesting an extension to file the 'Statement of Use' document. The US Trademark and Patent Office allows applicants 6 months to file this OR request an extension up to five times. They started the application in August of 2009 and delayed the application process until the trademark office declared it abandoned (September 2014). The 'live' applications are pretty recent (the applications started in August 2014), so I assume they are going to do this process all over again.I find the delays and abandonment curious. Here's some information about the Statement of Use and the process one would go through in the trademark application. You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginThank you. Will look into this. Also, I saw that Sycamore Valley Ranch LLC (aka Colony Capital) had submitted applications to obtain ownership of these trademarks, but they submitted a request to abandon the application after about a month. I'm guessing they were rushing to get the trademarks before someone else claimed them, but backed off once the Estate stepped in. I suspect the same. The last two dead applications listed are interesting. The applicants listed are named Dante Valdivieso and Jose Berreto for one; and Leticia Uvalle for the other. I think they are all attorneys involved with patent law. After a Google Search, I've discovered that Jose Berreto supposedly owns a trademark called Dubai Living (which I found interesting since Michael had visited Dubai before returning to the US). Also, Leticia Uvalle supposedly owns a trademark called West Coast Graceland. What's interesting is that these individuals were the first to submit trademark applications after Michael's death (as early as July 10). You'd think if the Estate or Colony Capital were in on the hoax, they would have been the first to do this?Agreed. I suspect that neither the Estate or Colony Capital are allies of MJ.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginEcho, what I've discovered from the Trademark website is that the Estate (more specifically, Triumph International) technically does not own the trademarks for Neverland or Neverland Ranch. If you read the 'TSDR' documents listed under the first 'dead' application (77811345), you will see that the estate kept requesting an extension to file the 'Statement of Use' document. The US Trademark and Patent Office allows applicants 6 months to file this OR request an extension up to five times. They started the application in August of 2009 and delayed the application process until the trademark office declared it abandoned (September 2014). The 'live' applications are pretty recent (the applications started in August 2014), so I assume they are going to do this process all over again.I find the delays and abandonment curious. Here's some information about the Statement of Use and the process one would go through in the trademark application. You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginThank you. Will look into this. Also, I saw that Sycamore Valley Ranch LLC (aka Colony Capital) had submitted applications to obtain ownership of these trademarks, but they submitted a request to abandon the application after about a month. I'm guessing they were rushing to get the trademarks before someone else claimed them, but backed off once the Estate stepped in. I suspect the same. The last two dead applications listed are interesting. The applicants listed are named Dante Valdivieso and Jose Berreto for one; and Leticia Uvalle for the other. I think they are all attorneys involved with patent law. After a Google Search, I've discovered that Jose Berreto supposedly owns a trademark called Dubai Living (which I found interesting since Michael had visited Dubai before returning to the US). Also, Leticia Uvalle supposedly owns a trademark called West Coast Graceland. What's interesting is that these individuals were the first to submit trademark applications after Michael's death (as early as July 10). You'd think if the Estate or Colony Capital were in on the hoax, they would have been the first to do this?Agreed. I suspect that neither the Estate or Colony Capital are allies of MJ. Bravo to your hunches. I have bit of information related to run by you as well. And a few questions for you to ponder. Will follow-up later this evening. Stay tuned...
Greenburg does seem a good choice. It seems they have worked in entertainment and intellectual property extensively. I'm now wondering if they were in on the hoax and maybe information was leaked and that's why we have those two initial applicants (Jose Berreta and Leticia Uvalle). Perhaps they found out about what would happen and tried to exploit the use of the Neverland name.Jose Berreta and Leticia Uvalle did not list Greenberg Traurig as their Corresponding Attorney. Nor did they re-apply. As far as why the initial applications were abandoned - it seems when an applicant files the 'Statement of Use' document, they are also required to provide proof that they are using the trademark name in commerce. This is difficult for ALL of the applicants since Neverland is still in limbo and we don't know what's going to happen to it. I think that's why the Estate has been requesting an extension to file this every 6 months. Interesting theory. However, we are looking at seasoned experts in law. Perhaps the delay is due to parties not reaching terms. Some of the goods and services that I saw listed include making a museum at Neverland. Perhaps the estate is claiming the trademark with the intent to someday open a museum?? Why would they drag out the application process for 5 years and then re-apply?? I'm wondering if there are some big plans for Neverland.Perhaps there is a plan to preserve the integrity of Neverland and open it to the public. But again, reaching terms may be a challenge.
Greenburg does seem a good choice. It seems they have worked in entertainment and intellectual property extensively. I'm now wondering if they were in on the hoax and maybe information was leaked and that's why we have those two initial applicants (Jose Berreta and Leticia Uvalle). Perhaps they found out about what would happen and tried to exploit the use of the Neverland name.As far as why the initial applications were abandoned - it seems when an applicant files the 'Statement of Use' document, they are also required to provide proof that they are using the trademark name in commerce. This is difficult for ALL of the applicants since Neverland is still in limbo and we don't know what's going to happen to it. I think that's why the Estate has been requesting an extension to file this every 6 months. Some of the goods and services that I saw listed include making a museum at Neverland. Perhaps the estate is claiming the trademark with the intent to someday open a museum?? Why would they drag out the application process for 5 years and then re-apply?? I'm wondering if there are some big plans for Neverland.