Bush ends executive ban on drilling...

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: JD50
Speculators aren't concerned with the oil market today.

But they aren't buying futures 5 years out either which is at least the timeline that any drilling offshore would produce results (assuming it's lifted in the first place).

I do believe they do sell oil futures that far out into the future.

That may be true but that's not the listed day to day price that you see on TV every day.

 

[Socio]

It seems the democrats not only don't want drilling they won't even allow a vote on it;

Blunt blasts Pelosi for not allowing drilling vote

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) on Sunday strongly criticized Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for not allowing a vote on a measure that would allow offshore drilling.

While acknowledging that Pelosi can prevent such a vote, Blunt said the Democratic leader would have to live with that decision, which he argued ?does not make sense to the American people.?

Pelosi had stated in a pre-taped interview that she would not allow such a vote.

?We?re going to exhaust our other remedies in terms of increasing supply in America,? Pelosi said. When pressed on the issue, she added that she has ?no plans? to allow such a vote.

Pretty obvious whose payroll the Dems, particularly Pelosi, are on, as they would rather deplete our strategic reserve making us even more reliant on foreign oil instead of becoming self reliant by drilling our own.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Socio
It seems the democrats not only don't want drilling they won't even allow a vote on it;



Pretty obvious whose payroll the Dems, particularly Pelosi, are on, as they would rather deplete our strategic reserve making us even more reliant on foreign oil instead of becoming self reliant by drilling our own.

While I don't think we'll become self reliant, I would like to see this go forward and allow drilling. It could help until we develope alternatives, which, at some point, would be fully necessary.

 

[DealMonkey]

AFAIK, most speculators are buying futures that are fairly short term, as in August delivery or within a few months at most. Now, unless these speculators are completely retarded, they're going to read a few things into Bush's action:

1.) It's completely symbolic.
2.) Congress has re-authorized the ban every single year since 1980.
3.) Congress has made it quite clear they intend to renew it again this year.
4.) Even if they did not renew it, it would likely take years for the effects to be felt in the global oil market.

Now, if you were a speculator, trying to figure out if prices would go up or down in the next month or so, would you bet they would go down on this news alone?

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Socio
It seems the democrats not only don't want drilling they won't even allow a vote on it;

Pretty obvious whose payroll the Dems, particularly Pelosi, are on, as they would rather deplete our strategic reserve making us even more reliant on foreign oil instead of becoming self reliant by drilling our own.

High oil prices hurt the entire economy. A bad economy is usually a good thing for Dems in an election year. Surely, Pelosi and the Dems wouldn't be trying to manipulate the economy for tactical advantage. I thought the Dems just wanted high fuel prices so we'd be forced to alternatives.

More fuel for the anti-Pelosi fire...

During the week of July 7, Congress held no fewer than three hearings in a row, to delve into the role of speculation in the skyrocketing price of fuel. However, at the insistence of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, responsibility for this issue was put under the House Agricultural Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Colin Peterson (D-Minn.). His mission? Suppress all legislative initiatives which would go against the interests of the speculators.

Briefed on this spectacle, Lyndon LaRouche reiterated his demand for Pelosi's immediate ouster as Speaker. "Pelosi has run a fraudulent side-show, to protect the speculators, and this is more than reason can tolerate," LaRouche charged. "She should be sent back to housekeeping, to defend the honor of all women."

<snip>

...Pelosi, LaRouche charged, has become a "tool of the very speculators" targeted by the airline executives. LaRouche cited the June 30 LaRouche PAC press release, exposing Pelosi's deep ties to mega-speculator George Soros, in addition to her well-documented, longstanding ties to Felix Rohatyn. Immediately following her election as Speaker of the House, in January 2007, Pelosi hired Soros operative Joseph Onek as her general counsel. Onek had been the chief policy advisor for Soros's Open Society Institute and its affiliated Open Society Policy Center, before being hired by Pelosi.

"With the entire financial system coming apart, rapidly," LaRouche concluded, "the kind of treachery that we have seen coming from Pelosi, on behalf of Rohatyn, Soros, and their ilk, has just reached the point where it is no longer tolerable. If this nation is to survive, Pelosi must be dumped now."

http://www.larouchepub.com/oth...si_money_changers.html

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Socio
It seems the democrats not only don't want drilling they won't even allow a vote on it;



Pretty obvious whose payroll the Dems, particularly Pelosi, are on, as they would rather deplete our strategic reserve making us even more reliant on foreign oil instead of becoming self reliant by drilling our own.

While I don't think we'll become self reliant, I would like to see this go forward and allow drilling. It could help until we develope alternatives, which, at some point, would be fully necessary.

Excatly. The Dems may take it in the shorts on this issue alone. Price at the pump affects every American. 80% of whom want access to drilling our own reserves. The dems are on the wrong side of this issue.

 

[Xavier434]

This might be some what of a side step to what you all are discussing, but I will just quickly toss in my feelings here. All I want to ensure is that the beaches and wildlife in my home town on Western Florida do not get effected what so ever by offshore drilling. The idea of them getting damaged is awful. It feels like the government is just tearing through your home and all of your fond memories just to drop gas prices. I know a lot of people here may not understand that and I do realize the counter arguments, but I do hope that at least some of you step back and really try to come to at least a partial understanding about how I and many others feel about this. It's my home.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
This might be some what of a side step to what you all are discussing, but I will just quickly toss in my feelings here. All I want to ensure is that the beaches and wildlife in my home town on Western Florida do not get effected what so ever by offshore drilling. The idea of them getting damaged is awful. It feels like the government is just tearing through your home and all of your fond memories just to drop gas prices. I know a lot of people here may not understand that and I do realize the counter arguments, but I do hope that at least some of you step back and really try to come to at least a partial understanding about how I and many others feel about this. It's my home.

Well... atleast you are openly a NIMBY.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
This might be some what of a side step to what you all are discussing, but I will just quickly toss in my feelings here. All I want to ensure is that the beaches and wildlife in my home town on Western Florida do not get effected what so ever by offshore drilling. The idea of them getting damaged is awful. It feels like the government is just tearing through your home and all of your fond memories just to drop gas prices. I know a lot of people here may not understand that and I do realize the counter arguments, but I do hope that at least some of you step back and really try to come to at least a partial understanding about how I and many others feel about this. It's my home.

Well right now that wont be a problem. Maybe if the American people toss out a few crooks this fall and send a msg it will change. Then you need to lobby your state senator and gov to keep your state at the status quo.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434
This might be some what of a side step to what you all are discussing, but I will just quickly toss in my feelings here. All I want to ensure is that the beaches and wildlife in my home town on Western Florida do not get effected what so ever by offshore drilling. The idea of them getting damaged is awful. It feels like the government is just tearing through your home and all of your fond memories just to drop gas prices. I know a lot of people here may not understand that and I do realize the counter arguments, but I do hope that at least some of you step back and really try to come to at least a partial understanding about how I and many others feel about this. It's my home.

Well right now that wont be a problem. Maybe if the American people toss out a few crooks this fall and send a msg it will change. Then you need to lobby your state senator and gov to keep your state at the status quo.

Our asshat for a governor supports the offshore drilling IIRC. I really do not like him for many reasons which go way beyond this issue, but that's another thread.

 

[Genx87]

Well if this every gets lifted. Lobby your state senator. While the gov may be for it, the senate would most likely have to approve or disapprove.

 

[Xavier434]

I probably will. It's worth my time even if doesn't result in anything positive.

 

[Genx87]

You may be surprised how receptive state senators are to their voters opinions.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Xavier434
This might be some what of a side step to what you all are discussing, but I will just quickly toss in my feelings here. All I want to ensure is that the beaches and wildlife in my home town on Western Florida do not get effected what so ever by offshore drilling. The idea of them getting damaged is awful. It feels like the government is just tearing through your home and all of your fond memories just to drop gas prices. I know a lot of people here may not understand that and I do realize the counter arguments, but I do hope that at least some of you step back and really try to come to at least a partial understanding about how I and many others feel about this. It's my home.

Well... atleast you are openly a NIMBY.

WTF? English please!

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Our asshat for a governor NOW supports the offshore drilling IIRC. I really do not like him for many reasons which go way beyond this issue, but that's another thread.

Fixed. Up until recently Christ was against it.

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Well... atleast you are openly a NIMBY.

WTF? English please!

Not
In
My
Back
Yard

 

[fskimospy]

I'm still not quite sure why people think offshore drilling and ANWR drilling is necessary. Do you know how many millions of acres of land are already leased to the oil companies for drilling that they aren't even using? I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I know it's more then 50% of their total holdings.

 

[Stiganator]

One stipulation I have is that when an oil spill happens, the oil companies are responsible for immediately cleaning it up. As far I know, they still haven't paid for the Exxon-Valdeez incident and that was over 10 years ago. They should have to pay immediately and not some bare bottom price, but the actual price and recompense for industries affected by their spill. You want to play the game, be ready for the consequences.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
One stipulation I have is that when an oil spill happens, the oil companies are responsible for immediately cleaning it up. As far I know, they still haven't paid for the Exxon-Valdeez incident and that was over 10 years ago. They should have to pay immediately and not some bare bottom price, but the actual price and recompense for industries affected by their spill. You want to play the game, be ready for the consequences.

They should be responsible for paying for 100% of the clean up and be given a strict timeline to complete the cleanup. They should have no say on what is necessary to clean it up and leave that to those that truly care and will do a good job. They should have to pay some major penalties and fines. They should not be permitted to raise prices on any of their products or services should such an incident occur as an effort to prevent the costs of their mistake from hitting us where it counts.

These companies are so ridiculously rich. The pressure when it comes to the loss in dollars needs to be massive enough for them to really care about preserving quality. There is no better way to ensure quality assurance than to threaten to hit them where it hurts the most.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm still not quite sure why people think offshore drilling and ANWR drilling is necessary. Do you know how many millions of acres of land are already leased to the oil companies for drilling that they aren't even using? I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I know it's more then 50% of their total holdings.

More detail:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfa...t_in_stating_that.html

Q: Are the Democrats correct in stating that oil companies are leasing 68 million acres in the U.S. that are not being used?


A: Not exactly. More than 4,700 new holes are being drilled on current onshore leases.
Republicans, including presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain, have been arguing that the federal ban on drilling for oil on certain offshore lands should be lifted. President Bush, in fact, repealed the presidential ban on such drilling on July 14; Congress would still need to remove its restrictions before the land would be available for exploration. Many Democrats disagree with such plans, and they have been saying that the oil companies already have more land than they know what to do with.

On June 24, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama used this argument in a speech in Nevada:
Obama (June 24): The oil companies already own drilling rights to 68 million acres of federal lands, onshore and offshore, that they haven't touched. 68 million acres that have the potential to nearly double America's total oil production.

The charge has been repeated by Nancy Pelosi and others in his party.


Unused Acres?


According to the U.S. Department of the Interior's Mineral Management Service, there are nearly 68 million acres of federal lands (onshore and off) that are part of non-producing leases as of fiscal year 2007. This is in contrast to 25.7 million acres of leased lands that are producing oil. So, there are 68 million acres of leased land on which companies aren't extracting oil, but Obama went too far when he said oil companies "haven't touched" them. As Bureau of Land Management Petroleum Engineer Bill Gewecke, who manages the onshore sites, told us, he "wouldn't say untouched, would say undeveloped."

That's because these leased lands that don't contain productive drilling operations likely are not lying idle as Obama implies. There are a lot of steps and procedures involved in setting up a productive oil well on leased land, both onshore and off. The Bureau of Land Management's Web site lists the regulatory hurdles that need to be cleared as part of the larger five-step life cycle of a well. The path to setting up an offshore drilling operation is even longer, as shown in a large flow chart developed by the MMS.

And there is a lot of activity occurring on leased lands that does not qualify as "production." For 2006, the BLM reported that there were 77,257 productive holes onshore in the U.S. Beyond that, there were 6,738 applications for drilling permits, 4,708 holes in which companies had begun drilling and 3,693 where drilling had ended among onshore lands. That's a total of more than 15,000 holes that were being proposed, started or finished that do not count as "productive" holes. And that doesn't even include holes that might have been continually drilled throughout the year for exploratory reasons.

It's not known how much of that drilling is taking place on leases currently classified as "non-producing" and how much is taking place on leases that are already producing oil. BLM's Gewecke told us that the agency does not track acreage that is being developed or explored. And Andy Radford, an analyst with the American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade association, told us that the oil companies are "very secretive about announcing where they are testing, exploring and thinking of drilling because the industry is very competitive."

- Justin Bank

Sources
Majority Staff, "The Truth About America?s Energy:Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits," House Committe on Natural Resources. June 2008.

"Total Producing and Non-Producing Leases: Fiscal Year 2007," Mineral Management Service. Accessed 2 July 2008.

Van Wagener, Dana, "Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf," Energy Information Administration. Accessed 2 July 2008.

"Inventory of Onshore Federal Oil and Natural Gas Resources and Restrictions to Their Development," U.S. Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Energy. 2008.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: Duwelon
I am so angry at congress right now. These incompentent, lying SOB's in congress, ALL Democrats, need to be voted out of office as soon as possible.

You want something to write about? Write to your favorite democrat congressman in the senate and house of representatives and tell them to get their priorities straight.

washington post

So Bush does X and Y occurs, therefore you conclude that without a doubt X directly caused Y.

There's 24 other letters of the alphabet my friend.. Might want to at least glance at a couple of them before drawing conclusions like that.

But whatever a Democrat (Obama) says and gets some type of results it is because he's forward thinking and our savior???

The amount of Dem cock sucking on this board is amazing. Typically all the rich people are Republicans. I thought everyone here was rich. What gives???

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
This might be some what of a side step to what you all are discussing, but I will just quickly toss in my feelings here. All I want to ensure is that the beaches and wildlife in my home town on Western Florida do not get effected what so ever by offshore drilling. The idea of them getting damaged is awful. It feels like the government is just tearing through your home and all of your fond memories just to drop gas prices. I know a lot of people here may not understand that and I do realize the counter arguments, but I do hope that at least some of you step back and really try to come to at least a partial understanding about how I and many others feel about this. It's my home.

Why do you think that modern oil exploration/production will destroy your beaches any more than ships, tankers or Mother Nature?

You wanna see messed up beaches just think about what its going to look like if one of those supertankers passing nearby has a serious problem.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Stiganator
One stipulation I have is that when an oil spill happens, the oil companies are responsible for immediately cleaning it up. As far I know, they still haven't paid for the Exxon-Valdeez incident and that was over 10 years ago. They should have to pay immediately and not some bare bottom price, but the actual price and recompense for industries affected by their spill. You want to play the game, be ready for the consequences.

They should be responsible for paying for 100% of the clean up and be given a strict timeline to complete the cleanup. They should have no say on what is necessary to clean it up and leave that to those that truly care and will do a good job. They should have to pay some major penalties and fines. They should not be permitted to raise prices on any of their products or services should such an incident occur as an effort to prevent the costs of their mistake from hitting us where it counts.

These companies are so ridiculously rich. The pressure when it comes to the loss in dollars needs to be massive enough for them to really care about preserving quality. There is no better way to ensure quality assurance than to threaten to hit them where it hurts the most.

They are, they do, and they can't.

Exxon Valdez was an oil tanker. Less domestic production equals more oil tankers off the coast of Florida.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Stiganator
One stipulation I have is that when an oil spill happens, the oil companies are responsible for immediately cleaning it up. As far I know, they still haven't paid for the Exxon-Valdeez incident and that was over 10 years ago. They should have to pay immediately and not some bare bottom price, but the actual price and recompense for industries affected by their spill. You want to play the game, be ready for the consequences.

They should be responsible for paying for 100% of the clean up and be given a strict timeline to complete the cleanup. They should have no say on what is necessary to clean it up and leave that to those that truly care and will do a good job. They should have to pay some major penalties and fines. They should not be permitted to raise prices on any of their products or services should such an incident occur as an effort to prevent the costs of their mistake from hitting us where it counts.

These companies are so ridiculously rich. The pressure when it comes to the loss in dollars needs to be massive enough for them to really care about preserving quality. There is no better way to ensure quality assurance than to threaten to hit them where it hurts the most.

They are, they do, and they can't.

Exxon Valdez was an oil tanker. Less domestic production equals more oil tankers off the coast of Florida.

So if they refuse to pay (or have delayed to pay) for cleanup of the tankers, why would they pay (or not delay) cleaning up any spills that occur on the platforms (which they should if they are allowed to drill, IMO).

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

But whatever a Democrat (Obama) says and gets some type of results it is because he's forward thinking and our savior???

The amount of Dem cock sucking on this board is amazing. Typically all the rich people are Republicans. I thought everyone here was rich. What gives???

So this is your contribution to the discussion at hand?

Nice...heh.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: Duwelon
I am so angry at congress right now. These incompentent, lying SOB's in congress, ALL Democrats, need to be voted out of office as soon as possible.

You want something to write about? Write to your favorite democrat congressman in the senate and house of representatives and tell them to get their priorities straight.

washington post

So Bush does X and Y occurs, therefore you conclude that without a doubt X directly caused Y.

There's 24 other letters of the alphabet my friend.. Might want to at least glance at a couple of them before drawing conclusions like that.

But whatever a Democrat (Obama) says and gets some type of results it is because he's forward thinking and our savior???

The amount of Dem cock sucking on this board is amazing. Typically all the rich people are Republicans. I thought everyone here was rich. What gives???

According to Hillary, she just had to get into the white house for the oil companies to be shocked into submission. I guess we missed that opportunity didn't we?