Bush to urge Congress to allow offshore drilling

[Geezle]

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
Speculation by investors is based on their guess about future supply and demand.
Pump more oil, build new nuclear power plants - and wind farms - and the speculators will lose their bet.

Precisely. Simple and bulls-eye. Thank you. The solution is both more oil drilling and alternative power. What's not to understand about that? How about trying to explain that to every Democrat in Congress. Like trying to force a donkey to drink water after you've led him to it.

[Mac-7]

Geezle wrote:

<quoted text>
Precisely. Simple and bulls-eye. Thank you. The solution is both more oil drilling and alternative power. What's not to understand about that?

The greens are not interested in compromise.

They think that no energy at all is preferable to oil and nuclear.

[Corruption control]

Dee wrote:

<quoted text>
One more time!!.....Congress won't ALLOW them to drill or develop on the land the oil companies already have.

You can say it a 1000 times and you will still be wrong. The oil companies have permission to drill on the land they have leased. I see you have no source again as usual just more baseless rant. Why would anybody lease land they cant use? you make no sense. Here is a source link that proves you are wrong. This is a different one than the one I posted earlier that you ignored. This article mentions a dem in congress that is telling these oil companies to START drilling in the leased land.
http://www.dailymail.com/News/200806180121
here is another link from a different congress person.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny22_hin...
You are one clueless person.

[Mac-7]

Corruption control wrote:

<quoted text>
The oil companies have permission to drill on the land they have leased. I see you have no source again as usual just more baseless rant. Why would anybody lease land they cant use?

Suppose there isn't very much oil on those lands?

It would not make sense to put up derricks if they weren't going to get oil there.

But since the Democrats make such a fuss about those leases I wonder what their guess is why the oil companies are not pumping the oil you think is down there?

[Patch]

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
Suppose there isn't very much oil on those lands?
It would not make sense to put up derricks if they weren't going to get oil there.
But since the Democrats make such a fuss about those leases I wonder what their guess is why the oil companies are not pumping the oil you think is down there?

I believe I have found a very reasonable answer to your question:

http://upperweather.com/bblog/01213312522

[Corruption control]

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
Suppose there isn't very much oil on those lands?
It would not make sense to put up derricks if they weren't going to get oil there.
But since the Democrats make such a fuss about those leases I wonder what their guess is why the oil companies are not pumping the oil you think is down there?

Thier not pumping because it keeps production down. With less production and more demand they can charge higher prices. Next If there were not any oil there they would not lease the land. you dont think the oil companies are that dumb to pay lease money for nothing. here is an article showing how much oil and natural gas could be produced if they would develop the acreage. This isnt what I think this is an article and the figures are produced by an expert.
http://www.dailymail.com/News/200806180121

[Mac-7]

Patch wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe I have found a very reasonable answer to your question:
http://upperweather.com/bblog/01213312522

Thanks for that information.

I think leasing land that turns out to not have oil is a risk that oil companies are used to making.

Oil men are gamblers at heart and used to taking chances.

But since Democrats and greens are implying a sinister motive for not collecting all the oil they say is on those leases why not sell the oil companies leases offshore?

If no drilling and no harm has been done to the current leases it would be foolish for the greens not to take advantage of the stupid oil companies who buy leases they don't use.

What are the greens afraid of?

[Corruption control]

Patch wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe I have found a very reasonable answer to your question:
http://upperweather.com/bblog/01213312522

#1. The source is a blog which has no credibility.
#2. I didnt spend hours looking for the authors name but i did read the article and saw no name attached to the article.
#3. Cheaper to hold the lease than drill?? that is nonsense if not enough oil to be feasable let the lease go and stop wasting money.

[Lil E Dorr MI]

I don't understand if there is oil on those leased properties,and there not drilling,then why would they drill wells off shore?

[warren losangeles]

Deregulated oil control and things will get even worse. Oil is stored and rationed out by the big companies and degegulating those controls will make things worse and drive prices up higher.

[The Real Truths]

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
Suppose there isn't very much oil on those lands?
It would not make sense to put up derricks if they weren't going to get oil there.
But since the Democrats make such a fuss about those leases I wonder what their guess is why the oil companies are not pumping the oil you think is down there?

One more time, dimbulbs....the oil companies are making record profits right now ....increased supply equals lower profits.....

[x-nutmegger]

warren losangeles wrote:

Deregulated oil control and things will get even worse. Oil is stored and rationed out by the big companies and degegulating those controls will make things worse and drive prices up higher.

Yea right regulations fix everything !

[Lil E Dorr MI]

If those leases are the same as when you lease your land for a bill board, they pay by 10 or 20 year increments. Maybe they will let the lease run out after it has expired. I just can't believe doing nothing is the answer. I think we have to develop alternative fuels as fast as we can, but right now our economy still needs oil.

[Mac-7]

Corruption control wrote:

<quoted text>
Thier not pumping because it keeps production down. With less production and more demand they can charge higher prices. Next If there were not any oil there they would not lease the land. you dont think the oil companies are that dumb to pay lease money for nothing. here is an article showing how much oil and natural gas could be produced if they would develop the acreage. This isnt what I think this is an article and the figures are produced by an expert.
http://www.dailymail.com/News/200806180121

Oil producers can only profit from a windfall of high oil prices if they sell the oil.

Letting it sit in the ground makes them nothing.

As for leasing the land, that entitles them to prospect for oil and produce it if they find any.

It doesn't ensure that there is oil there and most land is barren.

But if it bothers you so much that the oil companies are renting land they don't use why worry about renting them more that they won't use either?

[Mac-7]

The Real Truths wrote:

<quoted text>
One more time, dimbulbs....the oil companies are making record profits right now ....increased supply equals lower profits.....

There is no need to get ugly just because the debate is going against you.

Or maybe there is since you have a need to change the subject.

[Mac-7]

Lil E Dorr MI wrote:

I don't understand if there is oil on those leased properties,and there not drilling,then why would they drill wells off shore?

Exactly.

According to lib logic if the oil companies are making money by not drilling oil on land then they should not drill offshore either and make even more money.

[American Chick]

IF congress passes this they should put in that Bush, his family and any of his associates can not be involved any way, shape or form for them to make money off of it since that is the real reason why or prices are so high and now he wants to drill here

[Mike Anderson]

Allen wrote:

"Bush also will reiterate his call for development of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, Perino said"
BY their own estimates... 75 cents per barrel. A barrel is around $135 or more... 70% of the cost at the pump is the barrel price...= this is an idiotic idea that will save you all of 8 cents per fill up. The real reason? Take the blame off their rich Arab Bush family friends for gouging you and trying to turn your anger to the "tree huggers." Yeah, a bunch of flannel wearing hippies are to blame. Fall for that one? SUCKERS!!!

You're absolutely correct that the Bush/McCain-style Republicans just want to APPEAR to be doing something about gas prices.

Please read this and pass it along to others. With rare exceptions, this story is NOT BEING COVERED!

The Republican "drill offshore" deception has been exposed.

It was reported on CNN (6/18/08) that (1) oil companies already have 68 million acres of already-approved UNEXPLORED U.S. offshore oil-rich areas THAT THEY’RE NOT DRILLING IN, and (2) any new oil found would take 10 years to reach gas pumps!

Here’s a link to the story.(If you want to read it, you would need to look about halfway down in the story to see the reference to the unexplored 68 million acres.)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/18/bush.o...

WE ALL KNOW OIL COMPANIES WOULDN’T PAY TO LEASE AREAS THAT AREN’T PROMISING... BUT THEY ARE NOT DRILLING!

So, this entire "issue" of more offshore drilling is another Republican distraction!(And it shows the flip-flop and “say anything” mentality of Republicans who quickly jumped on the bandwagon like Gov. Crist of Florida... i.e. screw the coastline and tourism... give me oil votes!)

[Corruption control]

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
Oil producers can only profit from a windfall of high oil prices if they sell the oil.
Letting it sit in the ground makes them nothing.
As for leasing the land, that entitles them to prospect for oil and produce it if they find any.
It doesn't ensure that there is oil there and most land is barren.
But if it bothers you so much that the oil companies are renting land they don't use why worry about renting them more that they won't use either?

No its all about supply and demand. The more the demand and the less supply the higher the price for oil. if you read the other headlines they have thier eyes on Iraq anyway. They have been drilling and capping oil wells near my home for years now keeping production low and prices high. They drilled on the land of a friend of mine found oil and capped the well saying they want natural gas instead. The oil is there like I said if they increased production the price would go down and they want more money not less.

[Lil E Dorr MI]

American Chick wrote:

IF congress passes this they should put in that Bush, his family and any of his associates can not be involved any way, shape or form for them to make money off of it since that is the real reason why or prices are so high and now he wants to drill here

Do you really think that Bush getting rich is why oil prices are so high? It's corporate greed. The oil companies and also the car companies are just as much to blame. The technology for better fuel mileage was developed before Bush was in office. I agree it seems as he has not done much to help the problem. But partisan fighting will only make things worse. We have to do something, and right now drilling and increasing our refinery capacity is all we have. Most people can not afford alternative fuel cars.