Why are Republicans opposed to letting the oil companies drill on the 68 million acres of land?

that is already being leased from the government by the oil companies? Why should we give the oil companies more land rights so they can later use those leases to exploit the US population further. Should we really trust oil companies to look out for the best intrests of American consumers?Why are Republicans opposed to letting the oil companies drill on the 68 million acres of land?
You don't drill for oil, where you either have none, or not





enough oil to be economically viable!





That is a flat out talking point canard!Why are Republicans opposed to letting the oil companies drill on the 68 million acres of land?
Why would anyone drill on land where their is little chance of finding oil? Open up drilling in areas where the odds of finding oil are the greatest.





Why are liberals opposed to using the three or four brain cells they possess to think though an issue before posting this ignorant crap? Are you really that phucking stupid?
It's not the Republicans,, Pelosi is Democrat and they are the ones who have been blocking this for Years.





As for the future,,GOD help us. We are SCREWED!





Neither one is going to be of any help.
why is Pelosi blocking a vote on drilling?





Call it to a vote and see what happens





I guarantee you it will pass





We should be drilling in the land you mentioned and offshore and in ANWAR
Um, because there is no oil on that 68 million acres. If there was, they'd be drilling it. That's their business.





Hope that helps.
We should force the Oil companies out of business!!! That will show them.
Um... they're not.
First, Republicans are not opposed to letting oil companies drill on the 68 million acres of land. They have been allowing oil companies to drill on that land for years. The problem is that there is that there is no more known oil deposits on that leased land.





Oil companies are trying very hard to make money - I think everyone can agree with that. If oil companies felt that they could make money by drilling on the 68 million acres of land that they have been given a lease on, don't you think they would? They're not going to just ignore oil deposits on the 68 million acres if they know oil exists on that land. The problem is that they have already explored and tapped known supplies on their lease allotments. There is no more oil on that land that they can find or extract. Also, keep in mind that if the oil companies don't extract oil from the leased properties, they lose the lease. I assure you, an oil company would not want to lose a lease if they can prevent it.





Now, let's look at the proposed drilling solutions. Oil companies know for a fact that oil exists in the ANWR in Alaska, that's why they're all chomping at the bit to extract it. They know for a fact that tons and tons of oil shale exists in the western states that is easily extracted. They know for a fact that oil deposits are in abundance off the eastern seaboard (China is signing a lease with Cuba to drill of the southern coast of Florida right now).





The pros of drilling include a tremendously increased supply of oil, and if you're an American, this is especially good since American companies will be in charge of American oil extraction. This would mean more U.S. jobs, cheaper gas prices, and more tax dollars for the federal government to spend on research for alternate fuel sources. Additionally, if the U.S. oil supply was increased, it would decrease U.S. demand for foreign oil. If foreign oil demand decreases, then price-per-barrel from the OPEC providers would decrease. The trickle down effect would be cheaper oil for everyone in the world, which means cheaper fuel prices at the pump, which means cheaper products, which means consumers can buy more things, which means the economy improves, which means more jobs, etc, etc.





The cons include a loss of profit for overseas providers like the OPEC nations. If you're an American, that is a good thing, but if you're an OPEC provider, that is bad. Another con is potential damage to the environment from an oil spill or from the actual drilling operation. Most people don't realize that oil tankers were in the Gulf of Mexico during Hurricane Katrina. Not one drop of oil was spilled at that time. The other con is with the global warming theory community. If gas prices were cheaper, theoretically there would be less incentive for private enterprise to develop alternate fuel sources for transportation and production of goods.





You also asked, ';Why should we give the oil companies more land rights so they can later use those leases to exploit the population further?';. By ';exploit'; I assume you mean charging high prices for gas? Did you know that on every $1.00 paid for gas, about $.11 of that goes to the government, while only $.04 goes to profit for the oil companies? That means the government is making almost 3 times the profit without even doing the exploration for oil, marketing the oil, transporting the oil, etc. They did nothing, yet they reap the benefits. It seems to me that your beef on exploitation should be with the government exploiting the people and not with the oil companies. A 4% profit is certainly not unreasonable by anyone's standards.





Since I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, I don't look at the politics behind the decisions, just the facts. I personally don't want to damage the environment, and I also don't want to pay $4/gallon for gas this month, $5 next month, and so on. My solution is to open these lands for oil exploration with the following contingencies: all companies signing the lease to drill must pay 1% of crude oil profits toward research on alternate fuel sources. They must also meet federal requirements on minimizing the impact to the surrounding environment, and after the oil has been extracted, they must return the environment to its natural state.





I can all but assure you that the government and the oil companies would be happy with that solution and in the long run, all of us would benefit.