View Full Version : Republicans Have Trick Up Sleeve
Stoner
08-14-2008, 06:05 AM
Now that Bush has rescinded his father’s executive order banning offshore oil drilling, only the legislative ban stands in the way. And that ban expires on October 1, the start of the new fiscal year. The Democrats have the votes to extend it, but the Republicans will filibuster it and there is no way the Democrats can get 60 votes to stop the filibuster.
So the Dems are threatening to put the extension of the off shore drilling ban in as an amendment to the Continuing Resolution (CR) needed to keep the government running. If the Republicans filibuster the CR, the Democrats feel they would profit from the resulting shutdown just as they did in 1995-6.
But I doubt it. I thiink that the American public will demand a vote on offshore drilling and will not go along with the Democratic ploy of attaching a nongermane amendment onto the CR. They will see through it. A deal must inevitably be cut where the Dems get some of their conservation and flex fuel programs and the Republicans get their offshore and slate drilling — just like Paris Hilton suggested!
In the debate over off shore drilling, a key fact has been lost: States have to approve the drilling for it to happen. So California can continue to say no if it wants while Florida and New Jersey say yes. And, the other fact that is lost, is that the state will get 40% of the revenues from offshore drilling. So it is really an answer to the state budget deficits and an alternative to higher taxation..
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/08/13/republicans-have-energy-move-up-their-sleeves/
xLIBREx
08-14-2008, 06:16 AM
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/08/13/republicans-have-energy-move-up-their-sleeves/
Considering The People's Republic of Kalifornia has somewhere in the neighborhood of an $18B a year budget deficit and Florida is losing tax revenue by the boatload after the housing implosion I see this as a win win for the states and their residents.
a) Nobody is stopping them from drilling on the 600,000,000 acres they already have leases on. On land.
b) Your article lies. Some states will have a choice... others wont.
c) The truth is so rare with your people.
Drocket
08-14-2008, 07:33 AM
a) Nobody is stopping them from drilling on the 600,000,000 acres they already have leases on. On land.
The reality is actually stupider than that (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/10/142042/915): the current ban isn't on all offshore areas, just some areas right next to shore, and some areas judged to be environmentally sensitive. The massive areas that the oil companies have access to and haven't developed, as we speak, have 34 billion barrels of oil under them. The oil companies have chosen not to drill for those 34 billion barrels of oil, even though they know exactly where they are, because... Um... *crickets*
The areas under the ban have about 8 billion barrels of oil in them. Less than 1/4 of the oil in the areas they can drill in. This oil is a whole lot better than the other oil, though, because... Um... *crickets*
This thing is an absolutely pathetic sham.
A: Yes, bodies really are. So are other realities.
B: That's what the article said.
C: eh?
a) "bodies really are" What the hell does that mean? Did you leave a word out or something?
b) The article said: "States have to approve the drilling for it to happen."...
THATS just NOT true. The way its written, some states dont have a choice.
c) "eh?" ...
I know; what should I expect when a BLOG is used to substantiate a thread.
Why is this even a political tug of war? If it weren't for politics it would be a no-brainer.
Every other country in the world appears to be ahead of us on the brainers regarding this issue. That's very dismaying.You probably think drilling offshore will give you cheaper gas. You prolly also thought the same about Iraq oil.
The truth of the matter is, it doesnt matter how much oil they pump its going to Asia or wherevr they can get the best price.
In fact, they only want to own every drop of oil before its even pumped. They are HOARDING it fer christ sakes....
Check out "Armed Madhouse" from your library!
Milton Bradley
08-14-2008, 08:12 AM
Check out "Armed Madhouse" from your library!
Good advice, that.
:clapper:
NIOSA
08-14-2008, 02:58 PM
a) Nobody is stopping them from drilling on the 600,000,000 acres they already have leases on. On land.
b) Your article lies. Some states will have a choice... others wont.
c) The truth is so rare with your people.
Nothing but the fact that there's very little if any oil on those acres is stopping them from drilling there.
Dawkinsrocks
08-14-2008, 03:56 PM
Maybe the real trick up the Republicans' sleeve is to steal the election victory, bring down a couple buildings, blame it on a Saudi, and then attack an oil rich country to steal their oil.
Nahhh, they'd never do that. The US citizens would never buy it........
xLIBREx
08-14-2008, 05:57 PM
Maybe the real trick up the Republicans' sleeve is to steal the election victory, bring down a couple buildings, blame it on a Saudi, and then attack an oil rich country to steal their oil.
Nahhh, they'd never do that. The US citizens would never buy it........
Considering oil is all sold on an international market and there is no way to "steal it" like you falsely believe I would say that, even though you obviously like Dawkins, you are just a religious in terms of your politics as the staunchest right wing Christian.
Dawkinsrocks
08-14-2008, 06:17 PM
Your point about oil is risible. Its logical conclusion is that nobody owns oil.
I won't dignify your other comment
xLIBREx
08-14-2008, 06:21 PM
Your point about oil is risible. Its logical conclusion is that nobody owns oil.
I won't dignify your other comment
That wasn't my point at all once again proving you simply have no clue how the international oil market works.
Tell me, how much Iraqi oil are we currently "stealing?"
It's not that you won't dignify my comment, it's simply that you can't form a logical response that would jibe with your religious beliefs and that you could defend. This is a "debate" forum in case you haven't noticed. So why not attempt to actually "debate?"
Dawkinsrocks
08-14-2008, 06:23 PM
How does a country have an oil economy if it doesn't own the oil?
If it does own the oil it can be stolen.
Goddit?
Dawkinsrocks
08-14-2008, 06:23 PM
Like it is being
Nothing but the fact that there's very little if any oil on those acres is stopping them from drilling there.a) Can I tag team Thom Hartmann to answer this? audio link (http://airamerica.com/content/thom-hartmann-people-or-profits) Thom debates a Conservative, about the size of big oil proifts vs. the size of big oil corporations. These hoarded, untapped oil leases comes up. He's debating George Landrith, President of Frontiers of Freedom. Maybe spanking is more accurate.
{paraphrase} They have 10,000 leases where there is oil. They dont actually go to the trouble/expense of filing a lease if they dont know theres oil. They are just sitting on the leases waiting for oil to go to $200 a barrel... {paraphrase}
b) And I need to make a correction.... I said they have 600 million acres of oil leases, its actually 68 million acres. (That they are NOT developing... until they can make a killing off of them)
Dawkinsrocks
08-14-2008, 06:29 PM
Isn't it strange that a country dependent on oil, that is governed by oil barons, that is running out of oil, attacked a country that is swimming in oil?
Isn't that ever so coincidental?
suedanim
08-14-2008, 06:34 PM
Sure... The title for this thread coudn't be more appropriate. The world always expects Republicans to have tricks up their sleeves.... dirty tricks, that is.
The GOP is well known for its corruption, so its not surprise one of the faithful would use the word... tricks. :madlaugh: :drool:
Drocket said:
The reality is actually stupider than that (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/10/142042/915): the current ban isn't on all offshore areas, just some areas right next to shore, and some areas judged to be environmentally sensitive. The massive areas that the oil companies have access to and haven't developed, as we speak, have 34 billion barrels of oil under them. The oil companies have chosen not to drill for those 34 billion barrels of oil, even though they know exactly where they are, because... Um... *crickets*
The areas under the ban have about 8 billion barrels of oil in them. Less than 1/4 of the oil in the areas they can drill in. This oil is a whole lot better than the other oil, though, because... Um... *crickets*
This thing is an absolutely pathetic sham.
But, this offshore oil drilling PUSH is supposed to help McCain ride into office!
What a liar..
And...
He still hasn't signed on to this Republican sham to stop the ban from reinstating in October.
...so transparent...
xLIBREx
08-14-2008, 06:36 PM
a) Can I tag team Thom Hartmann to answer this? audio link (http://airamerica.com/content/thom-hartmann-people-or-profits) Thom debates a Conservative, about the size of big oil proifts vs. the size of big oil corporations. These hoarded, untapped oil leases comes up. He's debating George Landrith, President of Frontiers of Freedom. Maybe spanking is more accurate.
{paraphrase} They have 10,000 leases where there is oil. They dont actually go to the trouble/expense of filing a lease if they dont know theres oil. They are just sitting on the leases waiting for oil to go to $200 a barrel... {paraphrase}
b) And I need to make a correction.... I said they have 600 million acres of oil leases, its actually 68 million acres. (That they are NOT developing... until they can make a killing off of them)
Let's see, oil leases are distributed via lottery so there goes your argument about them not going through the trouble and expense of gaining leases that don't have oil on them. In fact, you or I can also very easily file for a chance at these leases. The land is dirt cheap so it would be foolish to not take as much land as possible. So say bye bye to your first logically false premise.
Premise two, they are not developing land that has oil on it is also a joke. In fact, oil companies are now going as far as drilling on ma and pa's private property making overnight millionaires out of these property owners by paying them huge royalties. Now why would the "big evil oil companies who only care about profit" drill on far less profitable private property? So, your premise number two is also gone.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25466382/
Over and over again I see people parroting these ridiculous claims when it's painfully obvious they have no clue how these things really work. I'm sure these lies get repeated amongst their own religious flocks with out even a question. The problem comes when these people enter the real world and try to repeat this false religious dogma only to be confronted with the fact they are completely ignorant of reality. It would behoove any of you who don't want to appear to be woefully ignorant to actually investigate these things you take as axiom before you simply parrot them.
And yet I am sure this complete lack of understand about how oil leases work will continue to get repeated. That's what is so sad.
xLIBREx
08-14-2008, 06:40 PM
How does a country have an oil economy if it doesn't own the oil?
I'm not sure you even understand the questions being asked at this point. Your assertion was we are "stealing the oil." I asked you how much Iraqi oil, which is getting sold on the international oil bourse, we have stolen. You can't answer. Talking about an "oil economy" is meaningless. It like I asked
If it does own the oil it can be stolen.
Like it is in Iraq?
Goddit?
No, you don't "goddit."
Dawkinsrocks
08-14-2008, 06:43 PM
Oh, but I suppose an answer is out of the question.
If you are right, why do countres sitting on oil make zillions out of oil?
By your argument every country can make zillions out of oil. Maybe it is just coincidence that Saudi has done so well on the international markets. Obviously sitting on the pool of oil had no impact at all.
Goddit?
Wndrtch
08-14-2008, 06:48 PM
a) Nobody is stopping them from drilling on the 600,000,000 acres they already have leases on. On land.
The lawsuit, filed in US District Court in Anchorage, targets permits issued to Shell and BP by the US Minerals Management Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Shell holds permits to survey areas of the Arctic Ocean for potential new oil sources, and BP has a permit to survey the area around its Liberty prospect in the Beaufort Sea.
ormer Congressman Ernest Istook took time out his busy schedule to reply to a blogger’s misgivings concerning the new Democrat mantra against “Big Oil,” in particular, their criticism that the oil companies are not exploiting the vast majority of already granted oil drilling leases. Below is Mr. Istook’s reply:
Col. Ward —
First, thank you for your service to our country. We can never express that often enough. Your general description of the oil and gas business is on-target. And the congressional comment you cite sounds to me like it came straight out of the playbook of environmentalists who want to mislead Americans. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) is not alone in the claims he makes. (And here’s a weblink to his comments)
Evidently, talking points are being circulated encouraging a lot of Congressmen to make claims like this. Here’s another example from a floor speech by Rep. David Wu (D-OR): “WHY SHOULD WE OPEN LAND FOR DRILLING WHEN BIG OIL ISN’T EVEN DRILLING WHERE THEY HAVE LEASES?” (Mr. WU asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Wu goes on: “Madam Speaker, it is no wonder that the only Republican solution to our record high gas prices is more drilling. Who would expect anything less when two former oil executives occupy the White House? The problem is that this has been the Republican energy plan for the last 7 years. It was created in secret by Vice President CHENEY and oil executives. And it is responsible for the record high oil prices that we all face at the pump today. Republicans claim that we could lower the price at the pump if we would only approve more and more drilling leases. That is their rhetoric. Here are the facts. Oil companies do not need new areas to drill. They need to focus on areas that are already opened to them. Of the 42 million acres of Federal land currently leased by oil and gas companies, only about 12 million acres are actually being drilled to produce oil and natural gas. Madam Speaker, if the Republican claims about more drilling are correct, why aren’t they demanding Big Oil explore drilling on the 30 million acres of Federal land that are already open to them but that they refuse to explore?”
Believe me, with oil at $130 per barrel, they would drill on those lands if it made sense to do so! No, not all oil and gas leases are “being used”, because not all of them have production-worthy quantities of oil or gas. Lots of people have property that is not being used, but government doesn’t use it as an excuse to take it away, or to forbid the owners from buying other property.
First, a company may lease property, but never have the funds to properly explore it or drill an exploratory well. Second, after paying for further tests (such as seismic), they often decide the lease isn’t worth the high, high costs of drilling after all. Or they may hold onto the lease for years until either higher oil prices or new technology makes it feasible to drill. Third, a company may lease property but drill on another tract (which drains a “pool” that covers multiple leased tracts), so perhaps they’re counting it as “not used” if no well is sunk on that particular piece of property. Fourth, they may try to drill and be blocked by government bureaucrats, environmental lawsuits, etc.
Finally, not all acres are alike. Some have lots of oil. Others have virtually known. Saying they’re not drilling for oil everywhere is like faulting them for not digging a gold mine on every acre.
I’ll also check around to see if there’s a more specific comeback to that.
Thanks for writing. –Ernest Istook
http://www.okpns.com/2008/06/18/the-truth-on-unused-oil-leases/
Yeah that land is really cheap.... when they are using MY MONEY to pay for it, money that I needed to buy a few necessities... not to pump into my tank at $4.50 per gallon.
What world do you live in, where land is so cheap? It damn sure aint around here.
I cant even afford 10 gallons a month on my budget.
My income didnt fluctuate a single dollar when the price of gas doubled overnight. That puts me in a kind of prison.
Everything is cheap when the treasure of the many is redistributed into your pockets by the powered establishment. These are the new robber barons.
OPEC is a primary enemy of our times.
xLIBREx
08-14-2008, 07:11 PM
Your post #23 is about 97% ad hom, asshole.
What are you talking about there? Post #23 wasn't even mine. Listen, debate if you can, but posts like this only make you look foolish.
xLIBREx
08-14-2008, 07:13 PM
Yeah that land is really cheap.... when they are using MY MONEY to pay for it, money that I needed to buy a few necessities... not to pump into my tank at $4.50 per gallon.
What world do you live in, where land is so cheap? It damn sure aint around here.
I cant even afford 10 gallons a month on my budget.
My income didnt fluctuate a single dollar when the price of gas doubled overnight. That puts me in a kind of prison.
Everything is cheap when the treasure of the many is redistributed into your pockets by the powered establishment. These are the new robber barons.
OPEC is a primary enemy of our times.
How about making specific points and providing a logical and rational argument either for or against them?
apdst
08-14-2008, 07:23 PM
Nobody is stopping them from drilling on the 600,000,000 acres they already have leases on. On land.
The talking points started out at 68 million acres. Now, it's 6 HUNDRED million acres. That's nearly half the land mass of the lower 48.
What are you talking about there? Post #23 wasn't even mine. Listen, debate if you can, but posts like this only make you look foolish.Your post was removed.
The talking points started out at 68 million acres. Now, it's 6 HUNDRED million acres. That's nearly half the land mass of the lower 48.And I made the correction in post #17.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.