interesting read:
Statement of Milton R. Copulos President, National Defense Council
Foundation
Committee on House Resources Subcommittee on Energy & Mineral
Resources
March 16, 2005
My name is Milton R. Copulos and I am President of the National
Defense Council Foundation.
I would like to thank Chairman Gibbons and the Members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. America is rushing
headlong into disaster. What is worse, however, is that it is a
disaster of our own design.
Three decades ago, the Arab Oil Embargo made it clear that the
nation's growing dependence on imported oil was reaching dangerous
levels and threatened to jeopardize our economic and military
security. Despite that dramatic demonstration of our vulnerability
nothing has been done to address the problem.
At the time of the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973, we imported 34.8% of our
oil. In 2004, imports averaged 62.9%, and on a volumetric basis were
more than twice the level they were 30 years ago.
We may soon come to regret our complacency. A confluence of factors
has occurred that heightens the jeopardy we face from our profligate
import dependence.
THE FIRST FACTOR: EMERGING ECONOMIES
On one front, we have skyrocketing demand, driven in large part by
the frenetic pace of economic growth in nations such as China and
India. Indeed, for the past decade China has experienced a growth
rate of between 7% and 9%, with a phenomenal rate of 9.5% in 2004.
India's GDP has grown at an average of 6% for the same period,
hitting 8.2% in the first quarter of 2004. In contrast, U.S. GDP grew
at 5.6% for the same period, and Japan at 5%.
Fueling this economic growth will require oil in increasing amounts.
So much oil in fact, that the ability of current suppliers to produce
it may be stretched to the breaking point. To illustrate, oil
consumption in developing countries is expected to rise by 3%
annually over the next 20 years. This means it will increase from
14.5 million barrels per day in 2000 to 29.8 million barrels per day
by 2025. Within this total Chinese oil consumption, which accounted
for fully 40% of the growth in world oil demand over the past four
years, is expected to rise from the 5.56 million barrels per day
recorded in 2003 to 12.8 million barrels in 2025. Of this total, 9.4
million barrels per day are expected to be accounted for by imports.
India, too, is expected to see a dramatic rise in its oil consumption
with a 28% increase projected for just the next five years.
Under the best circumstances, the competition for oil generated by
the explosive economic growth of Asia will serve to put a tremendous
upward pressure on prices, driving them well above the current $50
plus per barrel average. OPEC officials have said oil prices could
rise to as much as $80 a barrel and they may well be correct. In
fact, under the right circumstances the price could be even higher.
Under the worst circumstances, as our organization warned in a Los
Angeles Times article five years ago, the competition for oil could
lead to armed conflict - particularly with China. Lest this statement
seem alarmist or far-fetched, I would note that the Chinese are, for
the first time in their history, developing a "blue water" navy
capable of operating beyond their shores, and their naval doctrine
has been revised to provide for the projection of force in an arc
running roughly 800 miles from their shoreline. But, I said there was
a confluence of factors, and the growth of global demand is just one
of them. The other, equally important factor is the growing
instability of the nations on which we rely for the bulk of our
imports.
THE SECOND ELEMENT: UNSTABLE SUPPLIERS
Six nations, Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria and
Iraq contribute 66.9% of all U.S. oil imports, equaling 42% of our
total consumption. Of these, four, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria
and Iraq account for 37.7% of our imports or 23.7% of the oil we use.
And that's where the danger lies.
September 11th 2001 changed forever the way we must view resource
dependency. We must never allow ourselves to forget that one of al-
Qaeda's principal objectives is to destroy the U.S. economy. Indeed,
that is the reason the World Trade Center was selected as a target -
it was a symbol of America's remarkable economic strength.
More important, al-Qaeda and its affiliates understand all too well
that one way to bring about their goal of economic disruption is to
disrupt our supplies of imported oil. If anyone harbors doubts that
this is true, they need only look to al- Qaeda's December 11th 2004
statement which made the threat explicit stating:
"We call on the mujahideen in the Arabian Peninsula to unify their
ranks and target the oil supplies that do not serve the Islamic
nation but the enemies of this nation."
Continuing the statement also urged that al-Qaeda followers:
"Be active and prevent them from getting hold of our oil and
concentrate on it in particular in Iraq and the Gulf."
As dramatic as the December 18th statement was, however, what it
actually did was to officially sanction what was already going on.
For the past several years, America's transoceanic oil supplies have
been under growing assault.
In October of 2001, Sri Lankan Tamil Tiger terrorists conducted a
coordinated suicide attack on an oil tanker involving five small
boats. Seven people were killed. Eleven months later, al-Qaeda
affiliated suicide bombers attacked and holed the French oil tanker
Limberg in Yemen killing one crewman and causing a 90,000 barrel oil
spill. In the summer of 2002, Saudi Interior Ministry forces thwarted
an al-Qaeda plot to attack and cripple the loading dock at Ras Tanura
which handles 10% of the world's oil supplies.
A report by the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security
documented over 100 attacks on oil pipelines between April of 2003
and April of 2004.
Last July gunmen stormed an oil tanker at anchor in Indonesia.
The list goes on and on, but the point is simple: if oil must cross
an ocean to get here, it is not secure.
But external terrorists are not the only threat.
The facts show that three of our most important sources of oil
imports are so insecure that relying on them is tantamount to playing
Russian Roulette with all the chambers in the gun loaded. Together
these nations account for over one-quarter of our transoceanic oil
imports.
Let's take them in order of importance.
PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH OIL SUPPLIES
Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer and location of one-
fourth of the world's proved conventional oil supplies accounts for
12.1% of U.S. oil imports or roughly 7.6% of the oil we use.
With almost 40% of its population under the age of 15 and declining
fortunes that have seen Saudi Arabia's per capita income drop by 80%
adjusted for inflation since its peak a quarter century ago, the
Desert Kingdom is rife with unrest much of it directed at the West.
Indeed, since May of 2003 90 people have been killed in terrorist
incidents and foreign nationals have been urged to leave. It is true
that the Saudi Interior Ministry is attempting to combat the
terrorist threat to their country, and has arrested hundreds of al-
Qaeda suspects, but the threat continues to grow. Moreover, over the
past year, al-Qaeda cells operating in Saudi Arabia have increasingly
targeted oil- related facilities for attack. But even if terrorists
do not disrupt the flow of Saudi oil, another concern has recently
surfaced: the ability of the Desert Kingdom to maintain its
production levels. Matthew Simmons of the Houston-based Simmons
Company International set off a firestorm of controversy in petroleum
industry circles with his analysis of Saudi Arabia's oil production
capability. It is his contention that the failure of the Saudis to
invest in maintaining its huge Ghawar oil field has undermined that
nation's ability to "surge" production in response to market needs.
The Saudis have always been viewed the supplier of last resort. If
Simmons is correct, the prospect of global shortage is far greater
than previously believed.
Venezuela provides 12.1% of U.S. oil imports equaling 7.4% of
domestic consumption. With the election of Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias
as President, relations between the U.S. and its fourth largest oil
supplier entered a new era of hostility. A self- styled populist with
close ties to Fidel Castro and terrorist groups operating both in
Latin America and around the globe, he recently threatened to cut off
oil shipments to the United States. Chavez is openly sympathetic to
al-Qaeda. Moreover, he is cited in the latest edition of the State
Department's "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report as having "an
ideological affinity" with Colombia's FARC and ELN terrorist groups.
The State Department also says that weapons and ammunition captured
from FARC rebels have been traced to official Venezuelan stocks and
facilities. The situation in Venezuela is further complicated by
internal strife that was manifest in a general strike that shut down
that nation's oil industry for several months beginning in December
of 2002.
Nigeria, which supplies 8.7% of U.S. oil imports accounting for 5.5%
of our consumption, has been plagued with ethnic and political
turmoil in the Niger Delta, its principal oil producing region. In
2004, an average of 145,000 barrels of oil per day was lost to theft
and vandalism. Moreover, foreign oil workers and facilities have been
a frequent target of violence. For example, in April of 2004 two
Americans working for Chevron were attacked and killed, and in
January of 2005, 300 armed villagers from the village of Owaza
attacked two Royal Dutch Shell flow stations forcing the evacuation
of 18 staff members.
In addition to security issues, serious questions have also been
raised concerning Nigeria's reserve estimates with Royal Dutch Shell
recently reducing the reserve estimates of its holdings their by 67%,
or almost 1.5 billion barrels. Moreover, even if reserve estimates
are accurate, Nigeria suffers from a lack of investment funds to
maintain and expand its oil and gas production. This fact raises
further question about Nigeria's ability to maintain current
production levels in the years ahead.
OTHER OIL SUPPLY ISSUES
While terrorism and political instability are major sources of
concern regarding transoceanic U.S. oil imports, they are not the
only factors threats to transoceanic oil imports. Another important
concern are the efforts by the emerging Asian economies to become
major participants in the development of global oil resources, and
especially such efforts directed at traditional U.S. suppliers.
On January 20th, the Chinese government signed agreements with Canada
to help develop Canadian uranium mines and oil reserves. Among the
areas of greatest interest to the Chinese are the Canadian tar sands
deposits in Alberta province. The 175 billion barrels of recoverable
oil trapped in Canadian tar sands represent a resource base two-
thirds the size of Saudi Arabia's. In addition, China has expressed
interest in investing $2 billion to purchase a 49% interest in a
pipeline to carry oil 720 miles from Alberta to the northwest coast
of British Colombia.
China's move to enter into oil production and development agreements
with traditional U.S. suppliers is not limited to Canada. China
already operates two oil fields in Venezuela and has signed an
agreement to develop 15 declining fields in Zumano in eastern
Venezuela. The Venezuelan government has also invited China to
participate in exploration projects in the Orinoco belt, one of the
world's richest oil deposits. China has also made overtures
concerning oil exports to Mexico's national oil company, PEMEX. It is
not just the Chinese, however, that are fishing for oil in
traditional U.S. waters.
India recently signed an oil cooperation agreement with Venezuela.
The agreement is the most recent in a series of overseas oil
development projects initiated by India's stateowned Oil and Natural
Gas Corporation (ONGC). They also have projects underway in Russia,
Vietnam, Sudan, Myanmar and Australia. Clearly, competition for the
world's oil resources will become increasingly strong in the years
ahead. But oil is not the only natural resource which poses an import
vulnerability danger to the United States. Nonfuel mineral imports,
too, create an unacceptable economic and military vulnerability.
THE IMPORTANCE OF NONFUEL MINERALS
Few Americans give much thought to the important role nonfuel
minerals play in our nation's economy. Yet, while it is not commonly
understood, they are as essential to a modern industrial state as
energy. In fact, 16.8% of U.S. GDP is a direct product of minerals
and materials mining and processing.
To illustrate, in 2004, the value of nonfuel minerals produced in the
United States totaled $44 billion. But that was just the tip of the
iceberg. These raw minerals, along with minerals imports generated
$418 billion in processed mineral materials. These processed
minerals, in turn, added $1.97 Trillion in value to U.S. manufactured
goods. All told, some $16.8% of U.S. GDP is directly linked to
minerals and materials processing. As a result, one out of every six
jobs in our economy is directly or indirectly tied to mineral
production.
Yet as important as these commodities are to America's economic
success, their supply is not assured.
TENUOUS SUPPLIES
We currently rely on foreign sources for 100% of seventeen important
minerals. These range from gallium, which is used in such critical
applications as the manufacture of semiconductors, computer chips and
transistors to graphite, which is used for such hightech products as
fuel cells, and so-called "nano- flakes," 20 micron thick graphite
particles that have a broad range of applications from advanced
computer technology to aerospace.
We are also dependent on foreign sources for 80% or more of another
dozen key nonfuel minerals including titanium sponge, which has a
wide range of important defense applications, including providing
upgraded armor for the Abrams M1A2 tank; palladium, which is
essential to catalytic chemistry, and tantalum which is essential to
the manufacture of corrosion- resistant chemical equipment and
microcircuitry.
Overall, the value of U.S. imports of raw and processed materials
increased 30% between 2003 and 2004. More important, though, this
increase occurred even though the tonnage of materials imported
declined. The reason for the price increase in the face of decreasing
imports was simple: market competition. As with oil, the competition
for nonfuel minerals is intensifying, and as with oil, the primary
reason for this intensification is the stunning increase in China's
appetite for these commodities.
THE ROLE OF CHINA
As noted, China's GDP has been growing at an accelerated pace for two
decades - in fact doubling in size every eight to ten years. An
important aspect of this growth is that it has been largely the
result of spending on capital goods and construction projects which
are by their nature both energy and mineral intensive. The effect of
the demand created by this spending has been to spark skyrocketing
demand for nonfuel minerals and strain production and processing
capabilities to the limit.
The extent of the current global shortage of some nonfuel minerals
and materials is illustrated by the situation in regard to steel. In
2001, it was estimated that there was somewhere between 10% and 20%
excess steel processing capacity around the globe. But in 2004,
demand for steel was so strong that France petitioned the European
Mining Commission to suspend antidumping duties.
Although Chinese officials indicate they plan to restrict their
country's growth rate to around 8%, even that level of expansion will
place a strain on world mineral markets. Therefore, as with oil,
competition for nonfuel minerals between China and the industrialized
nations of the world will remain a permanent fixture of the global
economy.
ADDRESSING THE OIL IMPORT PROBLEM
Given that the perils of America's import dependence are a reality,
the question is, how can the nation's vulnerability be reduced?
Perhaps the greatest irony arising from our current energy and
minerals dilemma is that the answer has been at hand all along: make
better use of what we have.
In saying this, I am not advocating some draconian plan that relies
on effectively hamstringing the economy in the name of reduced energy
use. Rather, I am saying that America does not suffer from a shortage
of energy. The simple truth is that America's energy endowment is
more than sufficient to provide for all of our needs, both today and
in the future. The only real shortfall that we have is a shortfall of
the political will to find innovative ways to fully utilize the
resources we are blessed with.
For example, there currently are some 104 Trillion cubic feet
of "stranded" natural gas resources in Alaska - gas than currently
cannot reach market due to an inability to transport it. Alaska's
natural gas could help reduce our dependence on imported oil, if only
we were able to find a way to get it where it is needed. In the long
run, a gas pipeline could provide the means for transporting Alaskan
gas to market, but it will take time to accomplish its construction,
and time is a luxury we do not have. Fortunately, there is another
way to take advantage of this resource.
GAS TO LIQUIDS
The Fischer-Tropsch technology to convert natural gas to liquid fuels
has existed since the 1920s. It is currently in use in South Africa
to produce approximately 200,000 barrels of liquid fuel per day. It
would be possible to build a mobile Fischer- Tropsch processing plant
on Alaska's North Slope near Prudhoe Bay to convert the stranded gas
to liquid fuels that could be transported by the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System.
In addition to helping reduce oil imports the project would have
several added benefits. First, the fuel produced in this manner would
be extremely clean, and would thereby benefit the environment.
Secondly, as oil production at Prudhoe Bay continues to decline, it
will, in the near future, fall to a level insufficient to sustain
flow through the TAPS system. Therefore, a substantial amount of
recoverable oil might be left behind because it could not be
transported. The added volume of throughput generated by a gas-to-
liquids plant would help sustain the levels needed to maintain TAPS
operations and thereby significantly extend ultimate recovery from
the Prudhoe Bay field.
A third benefit would be the ability to demonstrate the practicality
of building mobile gas-to-liquids plants for use by the Armed Forces
as a means of providing fuel in the field.
Perhaps the most important benefit, however, would be that in
demonstrating the practicality of converting natural gas to liquids
in the harsh Alaskan climate, the project would open the door to
exploiting the vast methane hydrate resources that exist in Alaska.
METHANE HYDRATES
Methane Hydrates provide another potentially huge source of energy.
They were discovered in the 1960s. They consist of methane gas
trapped in a lattice-like ice and are found largely in ocean bottom
sediments lying below 450 meters and in permafrost. The Energy
Information Administration estimates that the United States methane
hydrate resources in place hold 320,222 Trillion cubic feet of
natural gas. This is the equivalent of 51.1 Trillion barrels of oil.
More important, onshore methane hydrate deposits in Alaska are
estimated to hold 519 Trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the
equivalent of 82.9 billion barrels of oil.
What makes methane hydrates so promising is the fact that in December
of 2003, a joint U.S., Japanese and Canadian research program to
determine if methane hydrates could be produced reported their
results. The answer was affirmative. According to officials involved
in the project, it will be possible to produce these resources
economically within a few years. Alaska's onshore methane hydrates,
by themselves, would be sufficient to eliminate the need to import
oil entirely.
But methane hydrates are not the only option.
OIL SHALE
The United States also holds 62.5% of the world's oil shale deposits.
The oil shale reserves found in the Green River formation that
extends through Wyoming, Colorado and Utah is estimated to hold some
130 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The Eastern Marine formation
may hold as much as 400 billion barrels.
The earliest recorded production of oil shale occurred in Autun,
France in 1929. Even as the first oil well was being drilled in the
United States in 1859, the first commercial oil shale industry was
beginning in Scotland. Production there ranged between 1 million and
4 million tons annually between 1881 and 1955. After 1955,
competition from cheap oil imports caused production to gradually
decline until 1962 when it ceased.
While interest in producing U.S. oil shale resources has surfaced
whenever oil prices rose sharply in response to tight supplies, new
oil discoveries would drive prices down and make oil shale an
uneconomic alternative. Oil shale was in effect always a bridesmaid
but never a bride. The need to be concerned over energy security
coupled with rising prices may finally provide an incentive to take
advantage of this prolific resource.
COAL The United States is also richly endowed with coal resources. In
fact, the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal holding 25% of the
world's recoverable coal reserves. Totaling 275.1 billion tons, U.S
coal resources are sufficient to meet current production levels for
200 years. Like natural gas, the technology to convert coal to liquid
fuels has been long known. Also, new advances in Clean Coal
Technology have addressed many of the environmental concerns that
previously caused objections to coal liquefaction and gasification.
Moreover, as with oil shale, the concern over energy security coupled
with the anticipated sustained high prices for oil may combine to
make synthetic fuels produced from coal an economically viable
alternative.
While alternatives like methane hydrates, oil shale and synthetic
fuels from coal all provide options that could and should be pursued,
there is another source of fuel to offset oil imports that warrants
consideration: making full use of our domestic oil and gas resources.
CONVENTIONAL RESOURCES
Vast, undeveloped deposits of oil and natural gas lie in areas
foreclosed to exploration. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, for
example, holds what may be the last onshore "Super Giant" oilfield in
North America. Further, the experience of developing the vast Prudhoe
Bay oilfield has demonstrated that oil and gas exploration and
production can be conducted in sensitive environments without causing
irreparable harm. Similarly, there are huge potential deposits of
both oil and natural gas in offshore areas currently foreclosed to
exploitation. As with the Arctic, much experience has been gained in
developing offshore hydrocarbon deposits that shows such resources
can be produced in an environmentally sound manner.
NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE FUELS
In addition to developing our rich domestic energy endowment, it also
makes sense to encourage both efficiency and non-hydrocarbon
alternatives. One of the most promising new technologies is the
hybrid electric vehicle. Although automobile manufacturers may well
have initially introduced hybrids as a response to pressure from
environmental interest groups, their public acceptance has far
exceeded anything that could have been anticipated. As a consequence
all of the major auto manufactures are seeking to expand their hybrid
lines. A particularly interesting new development is the so-
called "plug-in" hybrid electric which can achieve a fuel efficiency
level of several hundred miles per gallon.
Alcohol fuels and other bio-based fuels also can help to offset some
portion of oil imports. But in the end, it is also important to
recognize that there are roughly 220 million privately owned cars and
light trucks in the United States that will continue to require
conventional fuels to operate. Since their average lifespan is 16.8
years, the need for conventional fuels will remain with us for
decades to come. Therefore, options like gas- to-liquids, methane
hydrates, oil shale and synthetic fuels as well as expanded
production of conventional oil and gas resources will be necessary if
import levels are to be reduced.
What is perhaps most critical in developing a plan to reduce
America's oil import burden is to recognize that there is no single
solution. Rather the answer is to do everything. We must take full
advantage of both conventional and unconventional resources and
encourage efficiency and new technologies.
ADDRESSING THE NONFUEL MINERALS PROBLEM
The problem of nonfuel minerals imports is somewhat more difficult to
address than that of oil import dependence. The reason for this is
that there are some mineral commodities that are not found within our
borders. Therefore, any program to address nonfuel mineral imports
must take a two-part approach.
As with domestic energy resources, our dependence on imports for some
nonfuel minerals is the product of government restrictions. While it
was the policy of the U.S. government to encourage domestic mineral
development through the middle of the 20th century, a variety of laws
and regulations were imposed beginning in 1964 that increasingly
discouraged domestic mineral development.
Over the succeeding decades, more and more restrictive regulations
have been added to the mix with the end result being the decline of
our extractive industries. The impact of these rules is most
dramatically illustrated by the fact that North American mineral
firms only allocate between 7% and 10% of their exploration budgets
to the search for domestic minerals.
Clearly, removing unreasonable or excessively restrictive regulations
will go a long way towards reviving the domestic mineral industry and
reducing the need to import those minerals that can be produced from
domestic sources. There still remains, however, the problem of
meeting the need for minerals that cannot be found at home. There are
three ways in which this problem can be addressed.
The first step is to ensure that the government maintains adequate
stockpiles of those strategic and critical materials we cannot
produce for ourselves. History has demonstrated that no matter what
the cost of maintaining a strategic stockpile may be, it is still
cheaper than attempting to acquire critical materials in a time of
crisis through the marketplace. A second step is to encourage the
recycling of those minerals that can be retrieved from abandoned
equipment. For example, millions of automobiles are scrapped each
year, and all of them have catalysts that contain platinum group
metals. Many of these catalysts are retrieved so that the platinum
group metals they contain can be recovered. We should ensure that
they all are.
A third step is to aggressively research alternatives to those
nonfuel mineral commodities we cannot produce for ourselves. In this
way the need for imports can be permanently ended.
CONCLUSION
I began my testimony by saying that America was rushing headlong into
disaster. I stand by that statement. Our transoceanic energy
resources are already under assault and it is just a matter of time
before forces hostile to our nation and what it stands for succeed in
causing a major disruption of supplies. Whether it is the result of a
terrorist act or an intentional embargo as occurred in 1973 is of
little consequence. What is important is to understand that it is
coming and coming soon probably within the next two years. When it
does happen we should not again find ourselves asking why nothing was
done to prevent it.
Even if there is no supply disruption, however, there remains the
fact that increasing competition for energy resources will continue
to exert an upwards pressure on prices. This holds out the prospect
of high energy prices reducing economic growth, fueling inflation and
further aggravating our balance of trade.
Most important, it also means that we will continue to export jobs
abroad. And also bear in mind that some portion of every dollar we
spend to purchase transoceanic oil finds its way into the hands of
people who intend to do us harm. I also repeat that the disaster we
are facing is of our own making. The United States is endowed with a
resource base more than adequate to meet its needs if only we are
able to make full use of it.
The choice we face is simple. We can either find the political will
to do those things necessary to break the shackles of oil and nonfuel
mineral imports, or we can continue to stand idly by and allow events
to overwhelm us. If we fail to find the courage to do what is right,
we will have no one to blame but ourselves when the next crisis
wreaks havoc throughout our economy.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
MONTANA Oil and Gas is an independent oil and gas producer with North American operations. Montana's common shares are listed on the pink sheets under the symbol MOGI.
SHARE STRUCTURE
30 million shares outstanding....
20 million held by CEO
3 million held by other insiders
5 million tradeable shares used as short term collateral
2 million public float
Montana is an oil and gas holding company. The Company's headquarters are in Nevada.
Montana has a strong commitment to its shareholders and the communities where it operates. The Company is committed to high standards of social and environmental responsibility wherever it does business.
Project Geologists from Montana Oil and Gas
Paul Watson - Professional Petroleum Geologist.
Paul brings extensive experience to Montana as he has been in exploration, development and finance of oil and gas projects over the last 30 years in North America and Internationally. Paul has participated in financings valued at $150 million and has been responsible for drilling over 500 wells that resulted in the discovery of over 42 million barrels of oil equivalent. Paul is located in Calgary, Alberta and is a principal shareholder in Energy 51 as well as being an active member of A.P.E.G.G.A.; C.S.P.G.; and A.S.P.G.
Randy Buchanan - Petroleum Geologist and Geophysicist.
Randy is a principal shareholder and the President of Energy 51 and is located in Calgary, Alberta. Randy has held executive positions with a variety of oil and gas exploration companies over the last 30 years. As a Director and Vice President he has managed funds for the CMP Group of Funds, and was previously a supervisor for Gulf Oil.
http://www.montanaoil.com
AI
