don't give me that the 1st George Bush opposed it, THIS IS NOW, I can't afford these high prices much longer we have to do something before WINTER or do you want to freeze millions of americansWhy do democrats oppose offshore drilling when it will lower the price of oil?
The real answer. The democrats will do anything to get President Bush and the Republicans out of control.
Case and Point:
Supply and demand doesn't apply b/s.
The demand is going up and opec has refused to increase supply for that demand. Speculators are speculating on oil prices 5 years out based upon current conditions. When President Bush signed the repeal of the presidential ban oil prices dropped $10.00 almost immediately.
Case 2
it is not profitable to drill oil in the US for less than $75 per barrel (approx). If congress would open ANWR or Offshore to drilling, OPEC and others would drop there price (by increasing supply) to bring the price of oil down below that $75 dollar mark. Just to keep companies from drilling here. This would happen in a very short time. At that point Oil drilling allowed, oil below $75 no drilling in US (Not profitable)
So this has to be about getting President Bush and the Republicans out of office.....Why do democrats oppose offshore drilling when it will lower the price of oil?
The problem is simple, its people that makes it complicated. Drilling for more oil to increase supply will lower prices. We've seen this in process many times, but people close their minds to it. Want proof? Why did the prices go up when the offshore oil rigs shut down when Hurricane Katrina was approaching? Why did it go up again when the same hurricane did damage to the oil refineries along the coast? Why did it go down when oil supplies were higher than analysts expected on Wall street yesterday? Why did it go down when the Alaskan oil pipeline was built in the 70's? Why does it go up or down at certain times of the year like the summer or the holidays?
Oil companies make about a dime a gallon in pure profit, government makes makes triple that in pure tax money off that same gallon. So why should money loving politicians want to drill for more oil and reduce ';their'; money?
Solution is simple, vote out the people who are against energy independence, Ted Kennedy prevented a wind farm from being built in his neighborhood because it where he takes his yacht is one example.
Arnold Schwartzenegger is a Republican, one of the biggest. HE opposes it as well.
So you see, a LOT of Americans oppose it and you haven't really explained this: oil companies have FAILED to drill on 65 million acres they ALREADY HAVE!
Why do republicans want to give away more federal land to companies that are TOO lazy to use what they HAVE?
Why should American families have to pay more for gas when EVIL oil companies REFUSE to use what they have been given??
Why does Exxon want to hold America hostage? Profits?
Off shore drilling does nothing for the price of gas. You will never see a reduction int eh preice of oil from offshore drilling. that oil will not hit the market for more than 10 years. Best to go ahead and drill in the proven reserves currently under lease. Big oil simply does not want to brinig more oil to market. I say to hell with the, revoke the leases they are not using, and bring in the Chinese to Drill
i'm a liberal republican and drilling sounds like a quick fix answer that is something i would expect out of a democrat. maybe people should learn to buy gas in the morning or night, slow down and follow the speed limit, air up those tires and change those spark plugs to high powered ones, or get rid of those old cars that only get nothing to the gallon. do that and the price of oil will come down, in the mean time prosecute those speculators and enforce the rule of law.
They put an alleged and purely hypothetical ';threat'; to wildlife ahead of human needs. Elk have legs and move around constantly and have been seen to actually enjoy the heat from the existing pipeline.As far as offshore drilling goes we might as well since China is slant drilling OUR oil and they are nowhere as well developed in their drilling practices as we are.
Do you have any idea what kind of damage we will cause to ANWR if we drill there? And for enough oil to last us 2 years, IF we are wise. And knowing our addiction to oil, it won't even last 1 year. Is it really worth it? EDUCATE yourself before you go spouting about Democrats not wanting lower gas prices. I want lower gas prices. I didn't want to have to quit my job and find a new one closer to home, so I know all about gas prices, sweetheart. You don't need to teach me anything.
The question isn't why are the dems opposes its why are the repubs for.
The oil realized from more off shore drilling is a drop in the bucket compared to our current demand.
The oil companies are only drilling on 20% of the leases they hold now.
Oil shale in the rockies has more oil than the Saudis
Canadian oil sands have more oil than the Saudis.
you tell me, why do we need more offshore rights?
If the Lislau Oil company found 100trillion barrels of oil offshore, would you dump it all on the market as fast as you could to lower the price for everyone else, or would you trickle it onto the market so YOUR oil company could benefit from $4 a gallon?
think about it
Because pelosi has royally screwed congress and says the Bush is afailure even though her approval rating is lower. The dumb ***** actualy cited his rating when hers is like a full 10 points lower at a whopping 18% for congress.. great job congress now get the hell outa the way.
(Like I said in a previous question)
Big Oil already has a lease on more than 68 million acres of Federal land to drill in. This land is said to hold more oil than ANWR and the coasts combined.
Why should I say yes, and then have them go **** up what beauty is left in America?
Let them use what they already have, God damnit!
I agree with President Bush-----we need to tap into our own resources NOW and begin innovating NOW-----this crisis (and it IS a crisis) could be brought under control if congress will do the right thing here.----so far a few have come out with really lame reasons why they oppose these measures----just listen to them------can't get much lamer than that.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE FAR LEFT HAS GOTTEN CONTROL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. IT LOOKS LIKE THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO WIN BIG IN NOVEMBER WHICH MEANS THE FAR LEFT WILL GET CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WILL BE ABLE FOR THE FIRST TIME TO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. THEY WANT US TO STOP USING CARBON FUELS AND THEY DON'T CARE HOW IT WILL AFFECT THIS COUNTRY AS LONG AS THEY GET THEIR WAY.
Easy, because it will not lower the price of oil.
2/3rds of US oil for gasoline comes from Mexico and Canada, seems they charge the same per barrel as OPEC.
So exactly how will prices drop?
The oil companies will sell the ';new oil'; for less?
Huh?????
Offshore drilling won't lower the price of oil. The only thing that will is strengthening the US economy. The President and Congress don't seem to be interested in doing their jobs, so they wag the dog and argue about other things.
Basic supply and demand economics don't apply in this case. We are not witnessing high oil prices because there is a lack of supply. Much more of it revolves around the commodities market and a devalued dollar.
If one really thinks that off shore drilling will have an effect of oil prices this coming winter, then need to check and see how long it takes to actually get oil after they find it.
One doesn't drill an automatically hit OIL.
while youre freezing this winter i hope you dont blame the us pop for not supporting it. like drilling off shore is the magic answer to our current crisis. stop hittin the snooze button.
It won't lower the price, unfortunately.
Why risk it when the oil from it goes onto the world market and not for our own use? Crazy - isn't it?
Because of the 68 million acres the Oil Producers currently lease and have not drilled for oil yet.
Oil Producers won't produce even if they get permission to. They don't want an end to their huge profits from a ';shortage'; either now or the future. Our best hope is alternative sources of renewable energy. That scares the hell out of the Oil Producers. Watch prices drop from now until the election-they want to keep their Republicans friends in office.
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
Sat Jul 12, 6:49 PM ET
President Bush on Saturday tried to pin the blame on Congress for soaring energy prices and said lawmakers need to lift long-standing restrictions on drilling for oil in pristine lands and offshore tracts believed to hold huge reserves of fuel.
';It's time for members of Congress to address the pain that high gas prices are causing our citizens,'; the president said. ';Every extra dollar that American families spend because of high gas prices is one less dollar they can use to put food on the table or send a child to college. The American people deserve better.';
With gasoline prices above $4 a gallon, Bush and his Republican allies think Americans are less reluctant to ban drilling offshore and in an Alaska wildlife refuge that environmentalists have fought successfully for decades to protect. Nearly half the people surveyed by the Pew Research Center in late June said they now consider energy exploration and drilling more important than conservation, compared with a little over a third who felt that way only five months ago. The sharpest shift in attitude came among political liberals.
Democrats say they are for drilling, but argue that oil companies aren't going after the oil where they already have leases. So why open new, protected areas? they ask. Democrats say there are 68 million acres of federal land and waters where oil and gas companies hold leases, but aren't producing oil.
';Americans are fed up every time they go to fill up and they're right to demand action. But instead of a serious response, President Bush and his allies simply repeat the same old line more drilling,'; Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said in the Democrats' radio address.
';Democrats support more drilling,'; he said. ';In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production. That is why in the coming days congressional Democrats will vote on 'Use It or Lose It' legislation requiring the big oil companies to develop these resources or lose their leases to someone else who will.';
';But we know that drilling by itself will not solve the problem of high gas prices,'; Van Hollen said. ';We cannot drill our way to energy independence.';
He cited Democrats' calls to tap the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, because it is full and ';America's rainy day is now.'; And he said the country must focus on new energy policies that focus on alternatives to oil.
Bush said that Democrats are at fault and that ';Americans are increasingly frustrated with Congress' failure to take action.
';One of the factors driving up high gas prices is that many of our oil deposits here in the United States have been put off-limits for exploration and production. Past efforts to meet the demand for oil by expanding domestic resources have been repeatedly rejected by Democrats in Congress.';
Bush repeated his call for Congress to lift the restrictions, including a ban on offshore drilling. A succession of presidents from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to the current president have sided against drilling in these waters as has Congress each year for 27 years, seeking to protect beaches and coastal states' tourism economies.';
Bush, Democrats bicker over soaring energy prices - Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080712/ap_o…
TYPING IN CAPITALS WITH NOTHING BUT YOUR OPINION DOES NOT MAKE YOU CORRECT.
Democrats have only a slim majority. Not enough to prevent a Republican filibuster or override a veto. Guess who has been blocking legislation? Guess who has been vetoing?
Bush has vetoed over 17 bills in the past two years.
Bush's most recent vetoes:
Veto Date Bill Title Veto Code
2008-07-15 HR 6331 Medicare Bill V
2008-06-18 HR 6124 Second Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (Farm Bill) V
2008-05-21 HR 2419 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (Farm Bill) V
2007-12-12 HR 3963 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (CHIP) V
2007-10-03 HR 976 State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization V
2007-06-20 S 5 Stem Cell Research Act of 2007 V
2007-05-01 HR 1591 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 2007 with Iraq Withdrawal Timeline V
Note:
Medicare vetoed
Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act vetoed twice
Children's Health Insurance Program vetoed twice
Stem Cell Research vetoed
Iraq withdraw time line vetoed.
Who knew that the Federal Land Management placed a 2 year moritorium on Solar Energy Development on May 29, 2008? This was lifted on July 3, 2008 due to public pressure and outrage.
Lifts Moratorium on New Solar Projects
By DAN FROSCH
Published: July 3, 2008, New York Times
http://www. nytimes. com/2008/07/03/us/03solar. html?ref=us
DENVER — Under increasing public pressure over its decision to temporarily halt all new solar development on public land, the Bureau of Land Management said Wednesday that it was lifting the freeze, barely a month after it was put into effect.
The bureau had announced on May 29 that it was no longer processing new applications to build solar power plants on land it oversees in six Western states after federal officials said they needed first to study the environmental effects of solar energy, a process that would take two years.
But amid concerns from the solar power industry, members of Congress and the general public that the freeze would stymie solar development during a particularly critical time for energy policy, the bureau abruptly reconsidered.
“We heard the concerns expressed during the scoping period about waiting to consider new applications, and we are taking action,” the bureau’s director, James Caswell, said in a statement. “By continuing to accept and process new applications for solar energy projects, we will aggressively help meet growing interest in renewable energy sources, while ensuring environmental protections.”
In the meantime, the bureau will continue with its plans to conduct a sweeping study on the environmental impacts of large-scale solar development on public land in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah, said a spokeswoman, Celia Boddington.
Since 2005, the bureau has received more than 130 applications from private companies to build plants in those states, where large amounts of sun-scorched land make for prime solar real estate. Those proposals cover more than a million acres and have the potential to power 20 million homes.
The bureau will process all of the applications it received before the freeze, and now, as a result of Wednesday’s decision, will continue to accept new ones, studying the environmental effects of each proposed plant individually, Ms. Boddington said.
Solar energy advocates, who had lobbied against the freeze at public meetings that are being held by the bureau throughout the West, were pleased with the decision.
“We’re encouraged that the B.L.M. lifted their moratorium, but we’re only halfway there,” said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. “We now need to get them to expedite the permitting of the solar projects on public land.”
Mr. Resch said the decision was important given that while the bureau managed to approve a considerable number of oil and gas leases on public land, it “had yet to lease a single acre of land to the solar industry.”
Political opposition to the freeze was also a factor in the turnaround, and Ms. Boddington noted that there was “significant Congressional interest in the issue.”
On Tuesday, Representative Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, wrote a letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, urging the government to continue processing new applications.
In response to the bureau’s change of course, Mr. Udall said in a statement, “This decision sends the right message to the renewable-energy industry that we are committed to working with them to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and increase our energy independence in an environmentally sound way.”
IN 10 YEARS%26lt; it would lower prices%26gt; ONLY in 10 Years we need to be off OIL all together!
The same reason that a dog doesn't crap where it sleeps. Why aren't Republicans as smart as a dog?
the fact is any drilling done today wont impact a thing for at least 10 years. no B/S,just a fact.
How about all the wildlife it will kill off?
Well, what have they said? I doubt they'd just say 'no' and not give a reason.
THE PENGUINS!!! DEAR GOD, WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE PENGUINS?????
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment