Uprising: House GOP Stages Floor Revolt After Dems Skip Town Without Vote to Lower Ga

[2006Skins]

sarge you never answered why don't they drill in the areas that they have the leases too already???

I'm no geological or financial expert, but I would assume that they won't drill in the land that because it would not make fiscal sense; most likely due to the amount of oil they would get compared to the cost. The oil companies do want to drill off the pacific coast, where they have already done the research and would be able to produce oil in one to two years. I would ask congress why they don't let them drill there.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

^^ from the looks of it they won't make "as much" money. so they make the argument into a "you won't let us drill argument"

[Smoot Point Really]

Basically, the idea the repubs are pushing is a quick fix for a drug addict. Sure, it'll make them feel better for a night, but in the morning the hunger for drug returns and it will keep getting worse.

I like Burgold, but this is the most ill-conceived analogy that I've seen today (there is more of the day remaining):

Drug Addicts don't require drugs to live, our economy requires energy... Also, when a drug dealer buys drugs, his money goes to criminals and terrorists... If we open up our own natural resources, then we won't be sending as much cash to countries with questionable ties to terrorism.

We need to do it all... We need to drill, we need to invest in R&D, we need less interference from the Federal Government on this issue and allow States to decide for themselves if they want Oil rigs 8-12 miles off their coastline.

[Burgold]

I think that the reason it rings true to me is the Alaska thing. Estimates from the Alaska refuge have been consistantly pretty small. A few months of relief at most. Yet for five years, I've been hearing how if we opened up this protected part of Alaska it would be so incredibly beneficial and it is the fact that these few hundred thousand barrels of oil that would make all the difference in the world.

To me, that's the delusional logic of a drug addict. If I can just get this one little bit... It'll tide me over, I'll be okay. It doesn't address the problem.

I agree that we are addicted to oil in a way that it has become tied into our overall health. The cure to this addiction is manifold. It includes oil and new exploration and expanding our refining, but it also has to include reducing the need for oil. Is that nuclear, clean coal, solar, wind, hydro, or other. Yes.

But right now, the way people are talking about the deep sea drilling and lifting all the old restrictions, sounds to me like a junkie who will do just about anything to make sure he can keep the flow of drugs in his veins. Desperation isn't healthy. I actually agree with President Bush when he said we were addicted to oil. The problem is we've done far too little to treat that addiction. We do have other tools, other sources, and we need to be better at accessing all our resources and resourcefulness.

[Cliffmark1]

Congress always breaks, even the republicans. Congressmen was once a part time position, they are moving more and more towards full time status. Whatever your party affiliation the "no taxes above first 500MM" should be revoked or at least reversed to "no taxes for first 500MM in profit" -- that actually could promote sustainable research and exploration.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

can i just keep posting a link to this thread until someone explains to me why the oil companies aren't drilling on the land that they are paying leases to drill on???

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=254045

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=254045

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=254045

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=254045

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=254045

maybe a few more times??? cuz i'm tired of this not letting the oil companies drill nonsense

[Burgold]

CC,

There are two main reasons why the oil companies aren't drilling on that land as near as I can tell.

One: We are at refining capacity or damn near it. What could they do with the oil even if they got it out of the ground? Nothing. More oil will not help unless we build up the infrastructure.

Two: Oil companies like the prices where they are. They like squeezing every cent of profit they can. The price per barrel is not hurting them in the least. They are making record profits every single quarter. Why would they want to drill and make less money?

[Prosperity]

GOP thinks it finally has an issue that it can hit the Democrats hard on.

The fact that this bill would have zero effect on the price at the pump today and only a few cents difference years from now means nothing to them.

The question is whether you can get the public focused on this, and paint the Democrats as evil obstructionists.

So far, it's working pretty well. The GOP is great at this game.

If the Democrats were smart they would concede off shore drilling, at least nominally. But let's face it, the Democratic party is just down right stupid when it comes to these games.

[Midnight Judges]

If the Democrats were smart they would concede off shore drilling, at least nominally. But let's face it, the Democratic party is just down right stupid when it comes to these games.

So you are saying if Dems were smart they would throw their principles out the window? Short term, politically speaking, you're probably right.

Agree Dems are not nearly as skilled at manipulating their base into believing pure BS. That's part of what I like about them.

[kramdizzle]

These are the facts

1) there is plenty of oil if we want to drill for it

2) It WILL take a few years to get to; between 2-10 years

3) Global demand is not going to decrease in the next few years

4) the democrats in congress do not want to vote no on drilling because it will come back to bite them when they run for reelection, so they will not vote at all.

5) when the dems took back the house they ran on two main issues

1) They will lower gas prices

2) They will end the war in Iraq

Gas prices have gone up. They have tried to end the war by pulling out early. Our troops have fought hard and we ARE winning this war. It will be over soon. Basically they have done nothing that they promised

[Thiebear]

The current refineries are expanded 2% each year so the companies believe there is no reason to build more refineries.

Up in ND they are trying to build a refinary right now, it will take a year or so even after the vote to go ahead. Once one gets done others will go faster.

The 6 country search for oil and more IMPORTANTLY natural gas just finished in the Artic and they found a lot of both.

If the US could get to Natural Gas Cars we could sustain ourselves with 80% less Oil.

Help the people out up north this winter....

[kramdizzle]

CC,

There are two main reasons why the oil companies aren't drilling on that land as near as I can tell.

One: We are at refining capacity or damn near it. What could they do with the oil even if they got it out of the ground? Nothing. More oil will not help unless we build up the infrastructure.

Two: Oil companies like the prices where they are. They like squeezing every cent of profit they can. The price per barrel is not hurting them in the least. They are making record profits every single quarter. Why would they want to drill and make less money?

OMG. What happens when we need more roads or houses. WE BUILD MORE!! Your first argument is blindly stupid. The "big bad oil companies", who by the way pay three times in taxes what they make in profits, want to drill. when gas prices we $1 they were still making profits. The oil companies will still make plenty of money

[Prosperity]

So you are saying if Dems were smart they would throw their principles out the window? Short term, politically speaking, you're probably right.

Agree Dems are not nearly as skilled at manipulating their base into believing pure BS. That's part of what I like about them.

Well what I should have said is they should give the appearance of that at least.

The country can't handle another GOP era

[Koolblue13]

If that 57% is true. Then vote for the 3rd party that is closest to what you believe it. What we need is to show Americans are VOTING for somebody other than McCain or Obama. They both suck.

Yeah, one of those guys will win. But I want it recorded that somebody in Maryland didn't vote for a Repub or Dem.

That is the exact point to make.

I was asked the same question a few times recently.

If it looked like Obama was going to win, would you then change your stance and vote McCain?

No, I want it known that a third party has gotten some support.

If it stops seeming like a wasted vote during the election, more people will begin to support them and the power I have to show that is my one vote.

As long as people are voting against somebody or for the lesser of two evils, the negativity will continue to be very apparent in the White House on down to our own homes.:mad:

[Burgold]

OMG. What happens when we need more roads or houses. WE BUILD MORE!! Your first argument is blindly stupid.

I find those that initiate posts usually have nothing of merit to say, but I'll respond to your drivel with a simple question.

How many new refineries have been built within the United States in the last forty years? Was there no need for extra refining capacity ever during that period? Your analysis is overly simplistic and overlooks the reality of the past and present.

[Larry]

How many new refineries have been built within the United States in the last forty years? Was there no need for extra refining capacity ever during that period?

Obviously not, since our needs were met.

[Burgold]

Yup, you're right. They weren't needed at all in the late '70's and they aren't necessary now.

K,

More, don't blame me for the analogy... I just borrowed it from the President and though I am no supporter of President Bush's, I do think it's wrong to call the President of the United States blindingly stupid.

[Thiebear]

Yup, you're right. They weren't needed at all in the late '70's and they aren't necessary now.

K,

More, don't blame me for the analogy... I just borrowed it from the President and though I am no supporter of President Bush's, I do think it's wrong to call the President of the United States blindingly stupid.

hes asked several times that we build refinaries on closed military posts.

We have the refining capcity +2% for what we have.

We have one attempting to be built in North Dakota. (Canada oil) somewhere around 450,000 barrels a day.

We need new ones if were ever going to produce more. Outter Shelf/Shale west/Bakken north etc...

[Burgold]

hes asked several times that we build refinaries on closed military posts.

We have the refining capcity +2% for what we have.

We have one attempting to be built in North Dakota. (Canada oil) somewhere around 450,000 barrels a day.

We need new ones if were ever going to produce more. Outter Shelf/Shale west/Bakken north etc...

I agree and I don't really blame Bush for this. I do blame private industry a bit for not reinvesting into their business. This country has a pension for being really terrible at prevention and prepping for the future. We are amazing at handling crisises, but too often we tend to wait 'til the pot boils over until we decide there's a reason to do anything at all.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

So is this an issue of increasing the amount of refinaries? I thought we needed to drill more. But, clearly the oil companies are sitting on leases to drill... why would they have an interest in doing so?? hmmmmm... and why are some members admant about protesting not being allowed to drill?? sounds fishy too me.

moreover, why is the public sold on this perception that we need to drill more and the dems are blocking it...

[Burgold]

Refineries are a big part of the equation. Oil companies also want more properties, because more properties also mean more money for them. Building up refining capacity and making oil that you and I could use means large investments on their side.

Another, probably even bigger part of the equation, is a number of other nations are beginning to demand more and more oil, that means that there's less to go around. So, it's both a supply and production problem. In the next five years, the demand for oil around the world will increase a lot (China's a big culprit in this. They got a billion people to put to work and industrialize and put on the road)

[ChocolateCitySkin]

^^Thats why we need to shift focus to natural gas and electric.

[speardog1]

I think it's awesome that people who use a truck or SUV that don't actually need a truck or SUV are taking it up the ass with these gas prices. just sayin.

[88Comrade2000]

Article Link

>>>Back Channels: On energy, Democrats in office means a return to the 1970s.

By Kevin Ferris

Inquirer Columnist

Last week's energy debate in Congress gives voters concerned about gasoline prices a good idea where U.S. energy policy is headed.

If Barack Obama is in the White House, Democrats win a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi has fewer pesky Republicans to ignore in the House, this will be energy rule No. 1:

Forget more drilling. Offshore. Alaska. Doesn't matter.

Then step two, let slip by an unidentified Democratic aide recently in The Hill newspaper: "Right now, our strategy on gas prices is, 'Drive small cars and wait for the wind.' "

In other words, suck it up, gas-guzzlers. Break out the Carter-era sweaters and hair shirts, turn down the thermostats this winter, and let the drill bits rust. Policies of the 1970s are good enough for the 21st century.

Only when the high priests of sacrifice see true remorse, and combustion engines are offered up on the conservation altar will a mighty wind blow - from top Democrats, not turbines - touting the wonders of alternative energy.

And wonders they are. Necessary ones, crucial for environmental, economic and national security reasons. There's bipartisan consensus on much of it: clean energy, new technologies, alternative fuels. Look at John McCain's Lexington Project (www. johnmccain.com), Obama's energy plan (www.barackobama.com) or the House GOP's "all of the above" package (www.republicanleader. house.gov).

There's even a growing acceptance of nuclear power, though it's grudging in some circles. As the mostly self-anointed President Obama evolves on this one - expect an "As I've said consistently" head fake - look for subsidies to shrink, plants to become unaffordable, and the release of The China Syndrome - 30th Anniversary Edition, with an intro by "An Inconvenient Truth" scare-meister Al Gore.

Necessary as all those energy sources are, though, the reality is we'll need oil for decades, and the less we get from unstable regimes the better.

And that's where the consensus ends. You see the differences from the presidential campaign to the local races, including Pennsylvania's Seventh District, with Democratic freshman Rep. Joe Sestak against Republican Craig Williams.

Both candidates rightly recognize there are short- and long-term solutions to the energy crisis. Both are correct that a mix of energy sources is needed. They differ on drilling.

Sestak is unequivocal about the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge on his campaign Web site - "prohibit drilling" - but in interviews says he'd consider more drilling if oil companies can satisfactorily answer some questions:

Why open up more areas to drilling if 68 million acres in already leased lands aren't in production?

If the goal is to help reduce prices, what's the practicality of drilling in ANWR when its oil wouldn't be available for a decade, and when that oil would have little impact on prices (he quotes government estimates of 1.8 cents a gallon by 2025)?

The debate should be about relief to consumers, not producers, Sestak says.

"My job is not to make profits larger although I care about a healthy oil industry," Sestak says. "My job is to take care of my constituents."

Williams has just returned from Alaska and suggests some answers that might nudge Sestak and his colleagues into the more-drilling camp:

Companies are ready to drill more on leased lands, particularly in the Alaskan National Petroleum Reserve, which was set aside in the 1920s specifically for oil exploration. What's the holdup? One problem is lawsuits by environmentalists, Williams says.

That 10-year window before oil production begins? Williams says that time can be almost halved if Congress streamlines the leasing process and cuts other pre-drilling red tape - without sacrificing environmental protections.

And Williams dismisses the notion that more oil production will not lower gasoline prices: "When people say this will have only a nominal impact on prices, that's saying we don't have to do anything at all."

Keep two things in mind, Williams advises. One, ANWR estimates are based on decades-old studies, and sites often produce considerably more oil than anticipated. Two, news drives future markets, and oil prices have already dipped since the lifting of the presidential moratorium on offshore drilling. Imagine the change if Congress committed itself to an energy package that includes drilling for oil, nuclear power, natural gas, clean-burning coal and renewables.

The argument that increased supply lowers prices makes sense, but the public is entitled to a full debate on drilling. Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi last week decided otherwise, no doubt fearing a mass defection by Democrats if a fair vote on drilling was allowed.

But the questions aren't going away between now and November. And with gasoline hovering around $4 a gallon, voters want real answers. Mighty winds - from top Democrats, not turbines - won't be enough.<<<

[88Comrade2000]

Then step two, let slip by an unidentified Democratic aide recently in The Hill newspaper: "Right now, our strategy on gas prices is, 'Drive small cars and wait for the wind.' "

That is basically the democrats plan. The want to get rid of all vehicles larger than the Corolla,Civic,Focus,Cobalt type vehicles.