Volume 16 , Issue 45

1914, Haskell's Oil Plan For Oklahoma

1914, December, Oklahoma Congressmen Endorse Haskell's Oil Plan. It was one hundred years ago, 31 December 1914, Thursday that we found this interesting news article on the second page of The Guthrie Daily Leader: Endorse Haskell's Oil Plan. It appeared that Oklahoma congressmen would urge removal of restrictions.

Washington, DC, Dec. 31 (1914) -- Protests were reaching the interior department from Oklahoma against modification of the policy of not granting leases aggregating more than 4,800 acres of oil land in what was known as departmental leases. The policy had been followed by the interior department for some years, and was chiefly applicable to Indian lands in eastern Oklahoma.

It had been recently that ex-governor C. N. Haskell and William Mowris of Tulsa, promoted construction of an oil pipe line from Oklahoma to tidewater, made application to the department for removal of the lease acreage limit, representing that the Dutch-Shell interests, which, with others were understood to be financially backing the enterprise, could not see its way clear to support the new pipe line unless the restrictions were waived.

Recent publications of the plans down i Oklahoma brought from reputed, independent oil prodders of Tulsa, Nowata, Bartlesville, Muskogee, Okmulgee and Ardmore numerous protests against changing the department's policy. It became known that the Indian bureau sent telegrams to Oklahoma oil producers inviting further opinions as to the policy of either removing the limit on acreage that may be leased or extending it materially.

Members of the Oklahoma delegation in congress said the night before the delegation had endorsed that new policy asked for by Haskell and Mowris believing that in affording increased facilities of transportation the Oklahoma oil industry would be materially benefited. It was pointed out that Oklahoma and Mid-Continent oil field generally was short on pipe line capacity, and that rates charged by existing lines were too high, considering the service performed.
  |  View or Add Comments (0 Comments)   |   Receive updates ( subscribers)  |   Unsubscribe

---