Comments for Democrats try to spur oil exploration »
Posted By ybdogsct 1 year, 5 months ago in NewsRepublicans blocked a Democratic bill to spur exploration in areas where drilling has already been sanctioned. A supermajority was needed. Democrats were calling the bluff of Republicans on their persistent demands for more domestic production. "Drill on the leases you have or let somebody else do it," said Steny H. Hoyer (D-MA).
Read Full Story at usatoday.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 262 of 330 Comments
-
100%
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/us/18cong.htm...
"Republicans blocked a Democratic bill to spur exploration in areas where drilling has already been sanctioned. A supermajority was needed. Democrats were calling the bluff of Republicans on their persistent demands for more domestic production. "Drill on the leases you have or let somebody else do it," said Steny H. Hoyer (D-MA).
Democrats offered the legislation to show that they favored increased domestic oil and gas production, but want it to take place where drilling is already allowed. They said oil could be produced more quickly from those areas rather than in new locales. Democrats say oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres they could be exploring.
Senator Harry Reid took steps to start debate on a measure intended to curb speculation in the oil markets, trading that members of both parties have said is the cause of at least some of the jump in oil prices."
Reply-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive94 Replies
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned45 Replies
-
Neutral
bigurn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Democratic majority is trying to pass a law this is already on the books, for all intents and purposes. It is the appearance of progress, without any real progress.
If it were economical to explore for oil on the acreage, the oil companies would be doing it. They know it is more expensive than even the current high prices to find and convert this low-quality crude (if found at all).
This is a snowjob.
Reply-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The thing that -I- heard mentioned by a member of Congress in this regard is: Yes, there ARE existing oil leases, but! No one can say FOR SURE that there is actually OIL to be found anywhere there. The geology exploration apparently hasn't been completed. As to WHY the geology hasn't been explored and likely drilling spots identified is something I didn't hear about... I -presume- that the off shore and ANWR business is at the forefront because of a higher certainty that oil actually exists in these places? And, of course, this doesn't have much bearing on the necessity of getting AWAY from oil based energy sources to the maximum extent possible. Where's the bill to authorize more nuclear generators? Where's the bill to encourage more wind farms? Where's the bill to build additional hydro plants (THE most efficient power generation)? I guess I'd agree with those that claim this is just political posturing and essentially meaningless.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Since refineries in the U.S. are at capacity more supply won't matter much domestically. I understand many producing wells were capped off in the US in the early 9os because the price of oil wasn't high enough to bother with...I wonder how many have been put back in service now that the price is jacked?
If you remember, oil from the national reserve (which US tax payers bought to begin with) was "released" after Katrina but was sold on the international market, not domestically. The benefit to citizens was psychological if at all, the oil industry got to sell the oil twice. Originally to the government and again on the international market at top dollar. This is a kneejerk reaction that benefits the oil cartels in lieu of a sane energy policy. (Not whatever Cheney and oil industry execs cooked up in secret behind closed doors.)
Reply-
Neutral
CHAM1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes Radio I have been asking the same question. How many capped wells are out there right now? Could anything be quicker than opening a capped well? When I drive to Wal-Mart, I pass several visible capped sites. I have no idea how many other capped sites I can't see.
And then there's the leased land ( mineral rights ) that is just waiting for action. Why not utilize that resource?
Selling on the International market should be against the law if the stockpile is less or even close to demand. Why? Simply because our sick Government is threatining war if the access is blocked in the Straights of Hormuz, that mean some of us die, or maimed for life to secure a profitable venture for Big Oil. Isn't blocking the flow to America what happens when Big Oil sells what stocks we have internationally? If you don't agree, why not?
All this crap is just a gambit by Big Oil and their enablers to get deeper into your pockets.
How many closed refineries are out there?
Reply-
Neutral
AKpatriot1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Libs,
I think this one was closed down because it was too old to be upgraded to the new standards dictated in the Texas City Reform bill. There are a lot of older oil facilities that fall into this category. The problem is that as soon as there is an effort to build new ones everybody files lawsuits to block them. We need to build new refineries. America needs to build LNG receiving facilities. So far, 28 attempts have been made to permit these (LNG Facilities) and only 1 has been approved. That one was in Baja California. BTW, Mexico gets the jobs from this.
Reply -
-
Neutral
AKpatriot1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Libs,
I think this one was closed down because it was too old to be upgraded to the new standards dictated in the Texas City Reform bill. There are a lot of older oil facilities that fall into this category. The problem is that as soon as there is an effort to build new ones everybody files lawsuits to block them. We need to build new refineries. America needs to build LNG receiving facilities. So far, 28 attempts have been made to permit these (LNG Facilities) and only 1 has been approved. That one was in Baja California. BTW, Mexico gets the jobs from this.
Reply -
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Capped wells are low producers. Often it takes time for these wells to accumulate oil seepage which then can be pumped. You can be sure that if a capped well is worth pumping again and is allowed, the owners will operate them. I don't believe that oil companies intentionally keep their most productive wells capped for long. A refinery is most likely closed because it is too inefficient and out of date to be profitable. I suspect some are closed because they are not worth the investment to bring up to the latest EPA pollution standards. I don't ascribe conspiracy theories to oil companies as you do. Their job is to provide product and make money for the investors (stockholders). Re: exporting oil, I don't think you understand business. I read on one of these threads that the Alaska oil is sold to Japan. I believe that is a trade off for oil Japan has contracted to buy from more distant ports. That saves both a lot on shipping and makes a lot of sense, but is misunderstood by many.
Reply-
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Applied for one permit because they have been turned down so often they gave up. Why bother when they get sued and delayed for years and years. It has been made too expensive to build new and in a new location. They just expand and improve the exiting ones that are grandfathered in. The red tape is unbelievable. It's tough to find any locations to build. Nobody wants a refinery nearby. I've made comments about all this before, especially the bureauocratic pigeonholing and denials of permits and the environmental lobby's big grip on our oil permitting process. The one they did allow was a miracle and probably a face saver so they could give people like you a talking point. I hear conspiracy theories like yours all the time. Believe what ever you want.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No. The oil companies have only applied for 1 permit to build a new refinery over the past decade or so, and that ONE was approved.
During the mid-90s, Big Oil closed refineries to artificially choke supply and raise profits. I agree with the opinion that oil companies have no incentives to produce more domestic oil. They've been posting record profits for the past several quarters.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tiredofwhiners ~
I will grant that your comment seems measured and
thoughtful except for:
"...tightest regulations in the world now." ??
From the day this administration took office they have
never met a regulation they liked - thought necessary -
or didn't find a way around. They have gutted the very agencies our tax dollars support to protect us.
Their ideal world is NO regulation of any kind. A world
where the government is not involved at all in regulating
medicines,food,workplace safety,pollution of water resources
or air. If it needs to be done - which they doubt - let
the corporations police themselves. The people who brought
us the Love Canal - the Enron scandal and so much more
are not extinct. They are out there waiting for their
chance to be back in charge and unfettered by any regs.
You must know that for 7 years - "regulation", is just
a word, it is NOT a practice.
Reply -
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tiredofwhiners ~
" - can be sure that if a capped well is worth pumping again and is allowed, the owners will operate them."
No, we cannot "be sure". What you can be sure of is that
if Big Oil has a different agenda they will use a REAL
supply shortage or a contrived shortage the same way.
They will allow the price to keep rising until someone
says Uncle - and gives them what they want.
Why aren't you the least bit interested in finding out
if what they want is necessary first - before sacrificing
our coastlines? What happens when the coastline isn't
enough and they want Yellowstone or Yosemite - or the
Everglades?
Reply-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"--What you can be sure of is that
if Big Oil has a different agenda--"
How can you be sure of an "if"?
To respond: Yes, anything can happen. It could be all a big oil conspiracy. I don't think so (as a widespread all pervasive thing).
I am very interested in saving our coastlines and national parks and more. But I keep informed and know that since the Santa Barbara and Exxon Valdez spills the record is very good. Oil platforms have a great record in recent years. Thr U.S. probably has the tightest regulations in the world now. I try to keep up with the times and technology. Just keep monitoring the platforms and drilling as is being done and learn from mistakes. I am also a realist and know we can't stop all development that could cause harm to the environment. If I was the ultimate environmentalist, I wouldn't be driving a car, have A/C or a lot of things. I'm not that fanatical.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
normallysilent1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you really think after paying to drill a well they then go to the cost of capping it to EPA spec if the well was a producer?
Not around where I live they don't. If that well is making money its being pumped.If they feel it is no longer worth the trouble they would prefer to sell it to the land owner to get gas off of rather than cap it.
Capping makes it sound as if they are just bolting a lid on top. You might want to look up the guidelines on just what they are required to do once.
Capping costs them money they would rather not have to pay
Reply -
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's a link to the current stats too.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_unc_d...
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Um. I -think- that you might find that a lot of wells that have been capped have had the easily accessible oil sucked out. More might be down there, but more exotic (and expensive) extraction methods need to be employed. Long as there is still "easy" oil to run refineries at capacity, why go to the trouble / expense?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I cannot find the comments that Rahm Emanuel made on
the House floor regarding lifting the offshore drilling
ban. So this is the gist of his logic:
One of his daughters loves chocolate - she REALLY loves
chocolate, but they have a rule in their family: she must
finish what is already on her plate BEFORE she can have
chocolate.
A simple but apt demonstration of the scam our current
administration is fronting for Big Oil. They pretend not
to know that their plate is full. We should all let our
Congress know that we WANT them get dessert first - huh?
And that has WHAT to do with high gas prices?
And that will help us HOW??
Complete fiction is being sold - why are people buying???
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
50% of the american public can't name the vice president, shotgun chickenhawk Dick
50% of 'mreicans believe in endtimes rapture, and creationism, and the earth is 4000 years old.
50% of 'mericans don't vote.
Democracy is a joke, line your birdcages with the consitiution and the bill of rights. America is for sale, and public school funding is going to boeing for starwars, and to air bus for fuel supply jets.
Reply -
Neutral
CHAM1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Anteup. I think you just explained it accurately. Big Oil has a full plate already but they're not satisfied. They also want whats on your plate and my plate and everybody else's plate.
And they take that extra and see it to a neighbor then call for more ways to get stuff on your plate ( so they're have a bigger stockpile to take from).
Anybody that thinks Big Oil is for America is ripe to buy a Bridge to nowhere in Alaska.
Above in the thread I noted the threat to start a war if the flow of oil is blocked by someone other than big oil.
See, according to the Cabal in Congress, its OK for Big Oil to sell our Oil resources for Big Oil benefit, but its not OK for some Foreign source to keep their Oil from beimg taken by our Big Oil.
I'm in favor of Nationalizing our energy. Or threatining to if Big Oil doesn't operate in America's best interest.
Enough Americans and non-Americans have died to feed our Big Oil companies.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a great post. Did you stay up all night to think of these stupid things.
In that 50% of the American public that can't name... you need to include Obama who doesn't know how many states we have. He has been to 57 and was going to the last one.
Reply-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
CHAM ~
correcto mundo!
I am reading, "Free Lunch" by David Cay Johnston right
now and find that his first book, "Perfectly Legal",
which I will now go looking for, received high praise.
I'll be SO full of the stories of corporate abuse of
the bottom 90% of us - that I will be ready to burst!
I heard about the book from a relative - NOT the media
which would have been encouraging. I borrowed the book
from my community library - so, the info IS out there.
Maybe he has a chapter on the corporate media - which
will answer my question - but until I get to that section
...........why isn't the wider public aware?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
ningyo1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
yes harry someone else IS doing it--the chinese right off the florida coast in a deal with cuba--does that make any sense--and oil is a commodity like wheat or gold..it doesnt come in a barrel labeled "product of USA"--we need to allow drilling where the reserves actually are..not where we want them to be--its all about the hammerlock the environmental wackos have on the dems..pelosi and boxer in particular
Reply-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Allow them to drill where the oil reserves actually are....
In a lot of cases they don't know for certain where the oil is. Many oil companies have in the past bought rights for oil exploration, leases in the Gulf of Mexico, for a lot of money, just for the right to drill in that specific place. Yet after several millions of dollars, in fees for this right, and despite the fact that many adjasent leases are often explored from a centraly located lease, many more still go unexplored with no future plans for explration. It's all a game of locking up acreage before someone else gets to it. I say use it or loose. The holding period seems quit long, and I question if there is a renewal mechanism, and if so for how long.
One reason for the slow exploration may be the lack of availability of rigs, and qualified personnel to man them, in a responsible manner. There may be a couple of dozen idle rigs for offshore, but they are idle due to missing or faulty vital components. cont
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NINGYO:
"yes harry someone else IS doing it--the chinese right off the florida coast in a deal with cuba--does that make any sense"
Actually, this is FALSE.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/20...
"Vice President Dick Cheney's office has acknowledged that he erred when telling an audience this week that China is drilling off the coast of Cuba. Cheney Wednesday told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that 'oil is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida. We're not doing it. The Chinese are in cooperation with the Cuban government.'
Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, an independent congressional report, industry experts and other observers say there is zero evidence that China is drilling in Cuban waters, and doesn't even hold a lease to drill offshore."
LOL.
Keep spinning, NINGYO. Apparently, facts are not your strong suit.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In order to drill us out of the current mess we'd need at least a few hundred rigs to start ops, and as mentioned above, we just don't have those kind of structures sitting around.
Suposing we did, and suposing we had the personnel to work on them, they all find oil, where are you going to refine this oil, domestically? We don't have the refineries to do it with. As a matter of fact, oil companies are trying to get rid of them. There were a couple for sale near Corpus Cristi not long ago. Reason stated was that they couldn't sell enough of their product and stay in bussiness, acording to the paper.
Drilling isn't the answer. Yet some companies refuse to turn to alternatives. It really won't be long before electric cars are a reality. Observe the I think it was Brittish battery powered vehicle currently making a trip around the world. If I recall correctly, it is in the US west coast as we speak.
Just blame it all on the environmentalist, and burrow your head in the sand.
Reply-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, I blame it on the environmentalists and the politicians who are in their pocket. Drilling is the answer for now. Until I see a practical and affordable solar or non hydrocarbon using car I will keep supporting drilling our own oil. If you want to make it against the law to import oil, then I'm with you, but we still have to become oil independent. As long as we buy foreign oil we should use our own instead and at the same time keep the jobs and, yes, profits here. When alternatives become big sellers and profitable, the oil companies will go the way of buggy makers and would be wise to get into the new technologies.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Environmetalists don't have any money to put anybody in their pocket. What an ignorant statement. Onl the other hand, Exon got their fine for the Exon Valdeze disaster reduced to 55 million, in 2006 they rewarded their CEO with a 350 million retirement bonus, which is just a fraction of what they make in a quarter. Exon is bigger than all of saudi arabia.
The largest enviromental organization in the US is greenpeace with a 10 million dollar budget, not even a blip on the map.
Reply-
-
Neutral
joeeddie1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It seems greenpeace puts themselves in their pockets.
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overvi...
"The "green" in Greenpeace, it turns out, stands more for money than for the environment. When its anti-biotech scaremongering drove consumers in Brazil away from genetically improved foods, Greenpeace swooped in with its own line of organic foods to fill the demand that its activists created. Greenpeace's more recent reckless activism is a broader attempt to create the same sort of consumer shift here in the United States."
Reply-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Environmetalists don't have any money to put anybody in their pocket."
ROTFLMAO
They are backed by a lot of wealthy backers.
Oil companies are gouging?
MobilExxon made 10.4% profit. That is what most companies target as their profit. Where did most of that profit go? 401K's etc. And you want to say they are gouging people. Their financial statements say otherwise. Also a lot of that profit comes from non oil related groups they own.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Yes, I blame it on the environmentalists and the politicians who are in their pocket."
Wow, what a great big oil republican statement.
The largest environmental USA organization is greenpeace annual budget 10 million.
Exon Quaterly profit, over 20 billion and rising. The amount awarded for a retirement bonus to Exons CEO in 2006; 350 million.
10 million is not enough to put ANYBODY in the environmental pocket.
Vote republican, vote tired of phil gramm nation of whiners to a policy making position in the energy department of America/Exon.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
bigurn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The consumption was reduced by simply driving less more than a dramatic change in the sale of small cars. It would take months to have that kind of impact.
NYC's plan is to reduce grid energy, not transportation energy. It is onerous and big-government manipulation. Ask New Yorkers how they feel about their Nanny State politician.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A key question is pressure to increase supply vs pressure to decrease demand.
Reducing the current level of highly wasteful consumption can be both rapid, as we have seen in the past few months and, in longer term, huge. As consumers chose to purchase ienergy efficient cars rather than SUVs, as they chose to invest in greater degrees of insulation, as they adjust their thermostats to more appropriate temperatures.
New York City has a goal of reducing energy consumption by 30% by 2030. Compare a 30% savings to a few percent increase in supply that can be achieved by drilling.
Reply-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tired
You right in the implication that the need for oil will not disapear overnight. To think however that we will ever again become independent from imports, is a dream that goes counter to all available data and facts. I'm not saying all facts are known, but from whats out in the open, the conclusion does not support an unknown giant field.
The market place will determine when the oil companies go the way of the dodod bird. If they want to hang around, I'd think they have plenty of cash on hand to support viable alternatives, and thus corner the future energy market, whatever shape or form it may take. Instead, they do appear to be hanging on drilling no matter what.
Only a fool would think that they should cease drilling. The main point myself and others are trying to make, is that the oil co's allready have plenty of acreage to drill on, under their control. Why should they be allowed to take control over more, without first clearing out what they do have?
Reply
-
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I support drilling on taxpayer land with 80% of the profit going to the landowners. If a company wants to pursue this, they must give up their federal leases that they are not currently pursuing. The fed can then market those leases to other companies.
I would also suggest the possibility of hiring contractors to drill and retain all rights and profits.
Use the oil for the military, our largest consumer.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I thought that the high price of oil that we pay is due to the high demand of a growing Chinese economy. We buy their goods at Walmart, which puts them to work (for .55/hour) and allows them to buy cars.
Well, if that's true, then the oil they get offshore should lower the demand on the oil we have available to us..Or is that a lie too??
Reply -
-
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ningyo, someone said that this isn't happening right now -- that China has a deal with Cuba to explore for oil off of Cuba's coast, but there is no done deal as far as an actual lease signed yet. Does anybody have a source that will get to the facts regarding this rumor?
Given the penchant of some folks on propeller to use sources that exaggerate (putting it kindly), I'd like to see some some information regarding China's drilling activity in our hemisphere.
Reply-
Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's false. Dick Cheney's office has already admitted his lie, yet NINGYO continues to propagate it anyway.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/20...
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Can anyone think of any reason why any senator would vote against making oil companies drill on land they already have or unplug wells before they opened other land?
Why would republican senators block this?
The only reason can be republican senators care more denying dems a victory than helping the economy and environment.
Its a dramatic example of partisanship over what's best for the country.
We have to REDUCE our carbon emissions from fossil fuel. REDUCE.
We have to find non CO2 producing energy sources NOW. All the talk of drilling more for cheaper gas is INSANE.
Money is more important than life itself...the republican slogan. I guess they think they are safe in their office buildings and suburban houses....think again republicans. When the food supply starts to dwindle, you'll be just like the poor people, hungry. When the ice caps melt and change the ocean currents, and the ocean level rises about 10 meters...
Reply-
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Continued:
This is standard for guys like Brooks and Kristol, who feel
that our country is not at it's best - nor sufficiently
strong - UNLESS we are at war. What kind of people would
be unhappy when we are not engaged in a conflict? Take it
a step further - when there is no threat? They are actively
trying to find an enemy so we CAN go to war. These are
Neocons - this is only part of their ideology.
Reply-
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For Heaven's sake! Where's the first part of my comment?
Here's part one:
Less than a month after people jumped from the World Trade Center's north tower to avoid burning to death, David Brooks asked,"Does anybody but me feel upbeat, and guilty about it?" "I feel upbeat because the country seems to be a better place than it was a month ago," Brooks explained, "I feel guilty about it because I should be feeling pain and horror and anger about the recent events. But there's so much to cheer one up."
from:
"Normal,U.S.A.:Amidst the Terror, We're Turning Back to the Attitudes Which Made America Great",Weekly Standard,
October 5, 2001
Reply
-
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Can anyone think of any reason why any oil company wouldn't drill on land they already have or unplug wells before they opened other land?
Two examples:
One of my Aunts had a few gas wells in New Mexico. That was in the 1960's. She wasn't allowed by the government to sell the gas and they were capped by govt edict. She was mad about that but couldn't do anything about it.
Four years ago an oil company applied for a permit to drill on a lease they had bought in Florida. They had spent a lot of time and money to study/explore it. After 2 years and 100's of calls and letters, the permitting bureauocracy denied the permit. They said the lease only allows exploration, not drilling. So the oil co. filed a lawsuit and after 2 more years, the govt. decided to buy back the lease. They were out of luck and you can't defy a govt bureauocracy.
Just 2 examples I know of.
My common sense reason is: If there is profit to be made and they feel they will be allowed they will drill.
Reply -
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cake and eat it to.
They probably don't want others to have access to explore the area. They are lock in at a lease price and if they let it go, it might be more expensive to re-lease it.
Oil is the status quo. If we want to continue to follow instead of lead, then oil is the perfect path. It keeps us beholden to countries that don't necessarily enjoy our company. It provides money for the weapons that are being put into the field against our troops. Oil is a huge security issue for our country.
We need to explore and develop technology that we can market to the world and make money off of them for a change.
That's being conservative. Conservatives conserve. Conservationism.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
tchef1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is typical. If drilling in Anwar was the answer George could have opened up those areas when he had full support in congress. But he didn't. Why? Because it isn't the answer.
The Republicans had 6 years to get all the things they are crying about now done and didn't. Ask yourself why.
Reply-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The price of oil wasn't $130 to $140/barrel 6 years ago. Better late than never. I thought the majority in congress is Democratic for 2 years, while oil has shot up to historic highs. If drilling should be only at existing leases, why did our congress wait until now to push drilling there? Ans: See above first sentence, and lack of foresight. I don't pin blame on one party or big oil, I blame it on the entire 9% approval rating congress. I'm not sure ANWR oil was known about 6 years ago. Since they can't explore there, they still may not know how much oil is actually there.
Reply-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive18 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
chevydog1 year, 5 months ago
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Right on! There was probably some democrat and republican, liberal and conservative long ago telling us that we should drill here now and develop alternatives to oil, and nobody listened, especially the politicians. Now they're listening.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I see the usual blaming of big oil, Republicans, conservatives for all our energy problems. I submit that all who drive gasoline cars that use gasoline, ethanol or electricity made with oil, coal or natural gas and use other power using devices are the lackeys of big oil and are to blame. How about blaming big coal. More of our energy comes from coal than oil. Be like Ed Begley on the Green Channel and pump for 15 minutes on your exercycle generator to make toast in the morning. (I would do that if I had one and wasn't so lazy).
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Big Oil, big coal, or lots of small ethanol producers....still doesn't address the crisis of CO2 concentation acceleration which will kill the planet.
Solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear.....anything but more CO2.
Why we haven't already converted? Follow the money. Why the converstion is still about drill dreill drill? Follow the money. Why is there an organized extreamly well funded anti-global warming smear campaign? Follow the money. Why environmental concerns are not even in the discussion? Follow the money.
Reply-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think anyone disagrees that there should be more nuclear. That alternative was quashed long ago and only has recently been revived. Blame the quashers for that.
I once owned stock in a geothermal power company in Calif. They developed "the geysers" area. It never really went very far but still put power into the Pacific Intertie. Blame economics for that.
Wind power never became big, but recently has made a comeback what with new technology. Problem is a lot of residents don't want it in their back yard. A famous example is Ted Kennedy doesn't want the proposed Cape Cod wind farm in sight of his estate. Blame that on esthetics freaks.
Solar is great but is expensive and most can't afford it. There's a post today about a solar car and solar thin film tiles. That looks promising but is not in mass production yet. It may be too expensive right now.
Don't forget about hydroelectric. I'm sure a lot more can be done there and it provides the cheapest power.
Reply-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why don't we use that money saved to pay our debts? It always seems people want to figure out new ways to spend that saved money. But I do support federally funded research into alternatives as I have said before. The funding, of course, would come from more debt. Make any new technology patented and to be sold for royalties to help pay off the research.
Reply -
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Which leads to the question. What do we do to tide us over? That would be drill, drill, drill as long as we continue to buy foreign oil. Let's use our own oil, have our own jobs and profit here. If we don't China and others will and are already. If you can get a law passed that we cannot import oil, then I am for it. If we can get a bill passed to finance solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear and fusion power research I support it. Our taxes should be used to support a "Manhattan Project" of alternative energy. Instead it is subsidizing corn to ethanol, a bad idea which drives up food prices and costs more than it's worth and also causes CO2 emissions just like oil. If the U.S. didn't burn a drop of oil the greenhouse gasses would still build up at an intolerable rate because of China, India and others who say they are exempt and don't care anyway.
Reply-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Our taxes are also supporting an effort that uses huge amounts of our money and huge amounts of petroleum products. Stop that useless endeavor and use would go down (thus demand) and you'd have about 150 billion dollars to go toward finding alternatives. Alternatives to oil is a huge security fix. Continuing the use of foreign oil furthers the issues we have with the ideology and citizenry of the countries that produce it.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Exon, according to Chemical and Engineering news and the thousands of scientists and chemists who work in industry wrote a group letter condeming Exons funding of extremist whachnut think tanks producing charlatan scientific reports bashing global warming. When I say smearing, I mean it. Its not a casual or uninformed opinion.
The tobacco industry did the same thing. You name belies exactly what your are pomously accusing me of. Self described "intelligent bystanders" should not accuse those who like me have spent a life time in industry of throwing lables around.
Reply-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OK so it's a who's smarter war? My degree is in Ch.E. UW Madison, 1961. What's yours? I don't read Ch.E. News anymore. It's has probably evolved into a political rag. I knew lots of chemists and engineers in my 32 years working. They don't know much about climatology. They do know science, chemistry and engineering. What do tobacco cos. have to do with global warming? My own take on it is everyone is entitled to their opinion and analysis of the evidence. I am open about it and take it all with a grain of salt. I never say "case closed" as any true scientist should be on any theory. And I never say I am positively right and you are positively wrong. By the way, there are 10's of thousands of chemists and engineers working in industry. Were they all polled? Or were they busy doing their jobs (running refineries & chem plants). I'm not a climate scientist. All the ChE's I knew in college never took climatolgy. One is on TV every night (not an oil co man).
Reply -
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Another Goreabite. St. Al has spoken and the adherents fall in line. What does it matter that he makes a lot of money on carbon credits. What does it matter that most of his facts are greatly exaggerated. What does it matter that the temperature has been basically flat for 10 years. What does it matter that Russian scientist are predicting another ice age. What does it matter that the ice in Antarctica is growing. What does it matter that most of the evidence is unproven theory.
Anybody saying anything other that St. Al's teachings are charlatans.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is not a smear campaign. There may be some and there may be some self interest. But mostly it is another view and not to be dismissed. If every time someone disagrees with you it is a "smear" then you have a problem discussing and arguing your case. I think you are much better than that. I trust the thinking of educated and intelligent bystanders like myself to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Some posters on propeller tag labels on all who disagree with extreme rudeness. I only do so in response to same.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
tiredofwhiners1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Norway has large oil platforms off their coast. It provides a large part of their national income. They sequester the CO2 that comes up to below the ocean floor. Not sure that works long term but it is being done and adds to their cost of production. Of course the oil is still going to be burned and put CO2 into the air. But at least they are doing something to reduce CO2. My point is that a very liberal country and a big fishing nation (read: they don't want to destroy the fishing grounds) that believes in global warming is drilling offshore, because it is their own and brings in big money to their economy. The UK also has offshore oil, no problem for them. It's all about economics and money. Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, even China now, and others, all drill offshore. Should we be the only ones to limit such drilling?
Reply-
Neutral
KISA452a1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Interestingly, if US companies drilled offshore with all our regulations the drilling would seem to be safer and more environmentally friendly than say, Venezuela, China, etc. There might be an argument not to drill if no one else was going to do it, but that argument just holds no water any more.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NO!!!!!!!
Increased drilling will give us a few percent increase in supply that will be quickly taken up by increased demand.
Rather, a realistic DECREASE in the DEMAND side of the equation is both realistic and sustainable.
I point to the recent decrease in oil prices due to decresed demand as the most obvious example, but a longer term goal of more realistic driving habits and building construction will do MUCH more.
The realistic 30% reduction in energy use that New York City is planning will do FAR FAR FAR more than a couple percent incresed supply from domestic drilling.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You want a decrease? Fine. All Democrats, park your cars and never drive again. No more cars, limos, or private planes. Walk or take public transit. That should last a few hours for you folks.
Decreasing our need for energy won't help the world demand. China and India are meeting our levels of fuel consumption and it's only going to get worse. Your other comments are wrong. The price fell $ 9.00. After it climbed to over $100 over last year's price. Fuel is going to stay high until the US uses it's own oil or starts converting coal to gasoline.
New York like Chicago will find "creative" ways of finding energy. Heck if Chicago can get the Supreme Court to permit them to make a river run backwards in order to flush their toilets, New York can do anything it really wants and then lie about it later.
Reply-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
With respect to yur comments, BB64:
1) There is a VAST difference between No use of energy and rational use of energy.
2) Decreasing OUR fuel consumption (i.e. imports) WILL make a HUGE difference in OUR energy dependence. A FAR FAR FAR larger difference than domestic drilling could possibly make
3) New York's plans for reductions in energy use are well formulated and completely realistic. They should be a model for us all.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lead, follow or get out of the way. Us non-elites need lower gas prices, lower heating bills this winter and lower inflation.
You are some sick puppy. The elites are the billionaire oil CEO's and the millionaire republican senators and the military industrial CEO cheney who are obstructing progress.
Amazing how hypocritical, how self absorbed you must be to not see you are doing EXACTLY what you accuse progressives of doing.
TB, lead, follow or get the hell out of the way, because we are sick of swiftboating morons brownshirts in the party of the republican billionaire elitist aristrocracy, calling the working and middle class progressives "elitist". Jesus on a jet ski, it just doesn't get any thicker that that.
Its like your republican skull has been beat so hard with a stupid stick you can't see yourself in a mirror describing yourself and accusing dems of being you.
I guess pigs never get tired rooting in their own sh*t
Reply-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
TonyByron1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The headline should read: "Democrats try to spoil oil exploration".
Why do the Democrats oppose further exploration to find US oil and gas reserves? Are they happy that the US sends hundreds of billions of dollars overseas?
Oil leases are a gamble by the oil companies that the millions of dollars they spend on the leases plus actual surveying and drilling (additional millions)will return a profit. It's a win or lose gamble by the companies but it's a win-win for the government and the taxpayers. The taxpayers get paid for the lease even if no oil is found. The taxpayers make even more money if oil is discovered. Sounds like a good deal to me.
The dems and the eco-nuts in the party have been blocking expanded exploration of our own resources for decades to our detriment.
Lead, follow or get out of the way. Us non-elites need lower gas prices, lower heating bills this winter and lower inflation.
Reply -
Neutral
unome21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Big oil corporations not only control the price of oil but they control our politicians and our military.
We sure aren't in Iraq and Afghanistan for the American People.
While we suffer more for the price of fuel they enjoy record profits.
I doubt drilling offshore would change this scenario.
Reply-
Neutral
kzimm631 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So we are in Iraq for the oil? A war that has almost cost us half a trillion dollars and more than likely plays a big part in the state of our current lousy economy. So you are saying we started a war to take their oil. Where do you see the benefits of that? At the gas pump? If that was the plan behind this war that plan failed miserably!
Reply-
Neutral
kzimm631 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I tend to agree with most of what you said early on. What makes it all the worse for the American public is that the majority of the oil companies getting sweetheart deals are foreign oil companies. Another point is that the U.S. should not pay (using our tax money) to restore the infrastucure of Iraq. We paid (and sometimes with people's lives) to keep and have their oil infrastrucure up and running. The Iraqi government needs to use the money they are getting from the oil to restore their own infrastructure and not look to us for that. As for your last point about the media I think you are totally off base. Fox News is right, MSNBC is left and CNN hovers around the middle.
Reply-
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
kzimm63, I think (as I understand the argument) that they didn't go to war with Iraq to get oil for the American people but to benefit their friends in the oil industry. It has backfired a bit. The White house has attempted to get the Iraqi parliament to approve oil leases at prices that would greatly benefit the companies at the expense of the Iraqi people. So far the Iraq parliament isn't buying it.
Still the war has benefited a lot of this administration's friends who have received no bid contracts and who aren't being called to account for substandard work.
A lot of their advisers are signed onto the Project for a New American Century. The upshot of that is that they believe in American having a permanent presence and influence in the Middle East to control resources there.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
kzimm631 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I tend to agree with most of what you said early on. What makes it all the worse for the American public is that the majority of the oil companies getting sweetheart deals are foreign oil companies. Another point is that the U.S. should not pay (using our tax money) to restore the infrastucure of Iraq. We paid (and sometimes with people's lives) to keep and have their oil infrastrucure up and running. The Iraqi government needs to use the money they are getting from the oil to restore their own infrastructure and not look to us for that. As for your last point about the media I think you are totally off base. Fox News is right, MSNBC is left and CNN hovers around the middle.
Reply -
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
AIPAC invented and sold this war as a pro-Israel nationbuilding exercise using the confusion and rage from 911 against arabs in general, and selling the idea to Shotgun neocon dick by telling him he could pay for it with oil revenues he would steal from Iraq.
Simple and stupid as that, but then Bush is nothing BUT simple and stupid. When baby jesus tells you to push the button, well there's no higher authority than that.
Dual citizen neocon zionist dual citizen presidential advisors include Kissenger, Wolfawitz, Libby, ari Fliescher, Pearl, and many others.
Reply -
Neutral
unome21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I never said this was a good deal for average Americans, it's a good deal for big oil corporations. They are making sweetheart deals in Iraq right now for future profits from Iraq's oil.
While 80 percent or more of Americans disapprove of our current Administration there is that 1 or 2 percent that are Very Very happy with the way the world is going.
They also control your media.
Reply-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, the plan failed miserably since the Iraqi's have failed to ratify the oil-sharing agreements.
But, on the other hand, as it is turning out, the plan has worked brilliantly due to the now MUCH higher value of the oil the the oil companies can potentially control once Iraq becomes essentially the 51st State (note the size of the U.S. Embassy in Iraq: not just another office building).
Reply -
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Propeller struck again. This was supposed to be under the upper one.
unome2
WOW another conspiracy theory from you. You must be proud of the ones you talk about. Big oil controls everything. That goes up there with the Jewish bankers controlling everything. And the Zionists that hyperbola likes.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Propeller posted this above who I am responding to.
CHAM
You are hilarious. The reason for the oil going outside the country is a little thing called logistics. How do you economically get it to our refineries? Oil is sent to the closest location of demand. 80% of our outside purchased oil comes from Canada and Mexico. The rest from South America ans a little from the middle east.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
CHAM1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
unome2 is right. Completely right.
Know how to get an extra million barrels of Oil per day for use in America?
Stop selling that million barrels per day out of the Alaskan pipeline to Foreigners!
That amount of oil would erase the shortfall.
See how simple it is?
Reply-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
unome21 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, Maybe we should bring our soldiers home for summer recess as well.
In fact I think this might be an excellant idea , as long as our congress and president are at war they should stay in session, No vacations, no more weed whacking for bush on his ranch.
All in favor say yea!
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
kzimm631 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Over the past few months I have heard the arguments on both sides of this "drill don't drill" debate. I personally think it has to come down to what the American people want!!! That is what a democracy is all about. If a representative in the house or the Senate feels strongly one way about something but their constituents feel the other way they need to go with what the constituents want and against what they feel. This is democracy. If the American people want more drilling then more drilling it needs to be if they don't want more drilling then don't expand drilling. What is so wrong with each representative going back to their constituents and get a feel for what they want and vote on this issue accordingly. It would be really interesting to see all the polls on this issue and see what the American public wants. On a side note I think it is disgusting that they are all going for summer recess and letting this hang out there without deciding one way or another!
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.