Put the pressure on the Senate to Act on GAs Prices

[Bible-boy]

From the Desk of:
Steve Elliott, President, Grassfire.org Alliance


7/28/2008

Harry Reid is now attempting to dismiss and ignore the will of
the people who are demanding real solutions and real relief
at the gas pumps.

After his energy speculation bill was defeated, Reid is now switching
gears toward his omnibus spending bill, but key members of the
Senate--notably Minority leader Mitch McConnell says, "I will vote
to keep the Democrat Leadership at the table until we do something
serious about gas prices."

McConnell is right, we cannot allow Democrat leaders
to run away from what is easily the most important issue facing
Americans today.

That's why we are delivering petitions each and every
day to Senate leadership demanding the drilling ban be
lifted before they scurry away for their month-long vacation.

We are most certainly making an impact, but to motivate
this "do nothing Congress" to take real action, we must
increase our pressure, demonstrating to EVERY member
of the Senate that we want ACTION!...

Please join me in calling and e-mailing your U.S. Senators urging them to lift the ban on domestic drilling. Also, if you have not done so please join me in signing the petition to Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less at http://www.americansolutions.com .

 

[YOUTUBECANBESAVED]

I think it is bogus becaus Oil companys already have leases

68 million acres to drill but nothing was done

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYj0DWe5p88


I agree with T. Boone Pickens , Oil Companys already have places to drill and they have had the last 8 years under the leadership of two oilmen in the White House to drill and they have not , they have taken care of their stockholders in which I am one by buying back stock and stockpiling profits.

The reason they do not drill is like T. Boone Says it is too expensive and too much risk at 20,00 to 25,000 feet.

But I want to reinterate a fallacy that oil companys do not have a place to drill, the truth is , they do and are free to explore.

There are other reason as well not to drill, it only increases addiction, it will not be online for 10 years(it would have been only 2 years from now if they had drilled 8 years ago)

I looked at your petition and have decided not to sign it, since I think I have made my case that they do have places to drill. Thankyou

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Really ? The oil companies hate us so much that they're going to leave all that oil in the ground, right where it is, and hope to make their profits in wind ?


Talk about a weak argument. At least the left calls it a weak argument, when conservatives use it to discourage welfare.

 

[YOUTUBECANBESAVED]

Another reason that people get concerned is spills

I thought it was a local spill but it reaches for a 100 miles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgMPPDbKW-U&NR=1

I think overall the transport goes well but all it takes is one and one very bad one to bring attention to a power source that is dirty and not clean to animals and fish we are stewards over, renewabales is the way to go, the money stays at home, it is not burned up and then gone, our defense dollars are not used on the middle east, no clean ups of environmental disasters.

The final say is that oil companys do have leases to drill, and I would only compromise to allow that to give us that bridge to renewables but not to keep the herion needle in the arm.


"Curtis" to respond to your reasoning would be futile I wll let others educate you on how oil companys make their money of course you can use "Google or Wikipedia"
Again I think you go over the top is because I have made a valid argument. People are free to sign the petition I am just making my case why we even have a petition when the freedom to drill on leases already exist.

 

[KenH]

There is no point in drilling where the oil ain't. Just because a lease is available doesn't mean that there is a commerically viable amount of crude oil/natural gas under the ground in that location.

The 68 million acres argument is a straw man used to justify opposition to drilling in places where we know the oil is, such as in ANWR.

 

[Revmitchell]

There is no point in drilling where the oil ain't. Just because a lease is available doesn't mean that there is a commerically viable amount of crude oil/natural gas under the ground in that location.

The 68 million acres argument is a straw man used to justify opposition to drilling in places where we know the oil is, such as in ANWR.

Ken did I hear right that on some of those leases the oil companies get permits to explore but when they apply for permits to drill after a long period of waiting they are turned down?

 

[Bible-boy]

68 million acres to drill but nothing was done

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYj0DWe5p88


I agree with T. Boone Pickens , Oil Companys already have places to drill and they have had the last 8 years under the leadership of two oilmen in the White House to drill and they have not , they have taken care of their stockholders in which I am one by buying back stock and stockpiling profits.

The reason they do not drill is like T. Boone Says it is too expensive and too much risk at 20,00 to 25,000 feet.

But I want to reinterate a fallacy that oil companys do not have a place to drill, the truth is , they do and are free to explore.

There is a reason that the oil companies have not drilled on the leases they now hold. The land that is leased simply does not have the potential for oil, or as you point out is too risky for various reasons. However, there are other proven oil fields held under government control where the oil companies are not allowed to drill.

There are other reason as well not to drill, it only increases addiction, it will not be online for 10 years(it would have been only 2 years from now if they had drilled 8 years ago)

The "addiction" argument is nonsense. There is currently no other viable source of energy that can power the automobile or the airplane the way oil/gas does now. Solor can't do it. Wind can't do it. Burning food (corn) is simply crazy. It is a lie of the left that it will take 10 years to produce if we start drilling today. Most oil experts (and they are the one's who know) say it will take as little as 2 years to as much as 7. However, that is beside the point. If we are to buy the arguments of the left the price of gas at the pump is so high because of the evil oil speculators. Well Econ 101 teaches us that when supply is greater the price of a thing goes down. The same is true for the futures (speculations) market. When the potential for greater supply equaling lower prices hits the futures market goes down.

I looked at your petition and have decided not to sign it, since I think I have made my case that they do have places to drill. Thankyou

Of course you are free to do as you will. However, your reasoning for taking that action is flawed. Thank you too.:thumbsup:

 

[Bible-boy]

I thought it was a local spill but it reaches for a 100 miles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgMPPDbKW-U&NR=1

I think overall the transport goes well but all it takes is one and one very bad one to bring attention to a power source that is dirty and not clean to animals and fish we are stewards over, renewabales is the way to go, the money stays at home, it is not burned up and then gone, our defense dollars are not used on the middle east, no clean ups of environmental disasters.

This is a fallicious argument. The last oil spill that resulted from an oil rig in U.S. waters occurred off the coast of California in the late 1960s. The technology has advanced way beyond what existed nearly 40 years ago. Proof... When Katrina rolled over the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico as a Cat 5 storm not a single drop of oil was spilled. The danger of oil spills as it stands today comes from shipping oil in supertankers that can crash or be wrecked by storms.

The final say is that oil companys do have leases to drill, and I would only compromise to allow that to give us that bridge to renewables but not to keep the herion needle in the arm.

Another fallicous argument. To quote KenH, "You can't get oil from where oil ain't." See my response to this line of argumentation in my other post above. No one is opposed to developing the next technology that will replace the use of oil/gas. What we are arguing is that we should use our own oil/gas resources while that new technology is being developed. There is no reason to be paying greatly inflated prices at the pump while we develop this new technology whatever it may be.

"Curtis" to respond to your reasoning would be futile I wll let others educate you on how oil companys make their money of course you can use "Google or Wikipedia"
Again I think you go over the top is because I have made a valid argument. People are free to sign the petition I am just making my case why we even have a petition when the freedom to drill on leases already exist.

Nope, your argument is not valid and can easily be shown to be fallicous.

 

[KenH]

Ken did I hear right that on some of those leases the oil companies get permits to explore but when they apply for permits to drill after a long period of waiting they are turned down?

There are several reasons, including environmentalists clogging up the works:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iHcuoEcit0_kR272HwGKm6sL1K6gD921NR480

 

[Revmitchell]

There are several reasons, including environmentalists clogging up the works:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iHcuoEcit0_kR272HwGKm6sL1K6gD921NR480

Nothing new there I was just interested in the drilling permits.

 

[YOUTUBECANBESAVED]

68 million acres is real land no straw involved

There is no point in drilling where the oil ain't. Just because a lease is available doesn't mean that there is a commerically viable amount of crude oil/natural gas under the ground in that location.

The 68 million acres argument is a straw man used to justify opposition to drilling in places where we know the oil is, such as in ANWR.

68 million acres leased to oil companys is 50 times the size of ANWR , this is real land leased to oil companys. The oil companys said yes to these lands they did not say no. This is land that is on land and off shore, I think they lost an opportunity to win the debate by doing nothing for all these years then want to over reach and grab more public land , when they have not done anything to the ones they have.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX4EznYLtVU

No one is against drilling now it is just that they have land and can drill now this has been made into a political football because people are trying score points politically and it is an election year.

We as Americans must be careful of corporate welfare and land grabs by big oil when we have given them plenty to work with. those lands are ours and not big oil and we have by all accounts given them the right to drill on and offshore with
68 million acres worth that is just a fact.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111184/

http://www.ewg.org/oil_and_gas/execsumm.php

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92768094&ft=1&f=3

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iHcuoEcit0_kR272HwGKm6sL1K6gD921NR480

"The 68 million acres under lease to oil companies has potential reserves to nearly double U.S. oil production and increase natural gas output by 75 percent, the Democrats claim."

I disagree Bible-Boy Wind,Solar,Electric Cars, and more are viable
People in this nation want to get off the addiction and i would encourage everyone to look into T. Boone Pickens plan he states quite seriously and he is a successful oil man to boot "We cannot drill ourselves out of this"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2bOug1d20c

Bible-Boy take the time to look at T. Boone Pickens Plan, I trust him over Newt Gingrich a politician.

 

[KenH]

Well, Pastor Mitchell, you might be interested in the story of Destin Dome:

"Those bans didn't cover the Destin Dome, which went on the block in 1984. Chevron and partners Conoco and Murphy Exploration & Production drilled three exploratory wells there in 1987, 1989 and 1995 that found an estimated 2.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. But to actually produce gas, Chevron needed federal and state approval.

Chevron submitted a development plan to the state and the Interior Department for review in 1996 -- an inauspicious time for offshore drillers. George Bush I in 1990 had placed a temporary moratorium on new drilling off South Florida, fulfilling a campaign promise to Sunshine State voters. Then, in 1995, the Clinton administration came out against new lease sales, and Florida's congressional crew, both Republicans and Democrats, successfully supported another moratorium on new drilling to replace one that had expired.

Chevron proposed drilling 12 to 21 gas wells. Florida bureaucrats took their sweet time before nixing the application two years later. Chevron appealed to the Department of Commerce, which can overturn state decisions. Reluctant to upset anyone, Commerce simply stalled. Under the law, there is no deadline on appeals. Chevron sued the federal government in 2000, claiming it had been denied a timely and fair review of its plans.

Clinton stepped down, and Bush II was sworn in. His Commerce Department twiddled its thumbs, too. Meanwhile, Bush met secretly with Florida's then-governor -- his brother Jeb -- a foe of offshore drilling. They agreed to have the federal government buy back the leases for $115 million and place a moratorium on drilling at the Dome until 2011. There are now 140 actual leased tracts there that can't be drilled, reports Lisa Flavin, a senior policy adviser at the American Petroleum Institute in Washington.

When President Bush suddenly flip-flopped this month and said he favored drilling on the Outer Continental shelf, Democrats accused him of wanting to give more land to Big Oil. Thundered Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts: "Oil companies already own 68 million acres of drillable land and sea, which is the size of Georgia and Illinois combined, but they're not producing there." They should use it or lose it, he added. But those acres include the Destin Dome!

Chevron took its lease refund to help finance a $12 billion project in Angola to produce liquefied natural gas for shipment here. Ironically, a major gas pipeline between Texas and Tampa runs right by the Destin Dome."

- rest at http://online.barrons.com/article/SB121460971892012411.html?mod=googlenews_barrons

 

[KenH]

"The 68 million acres under lease to oil companies has potential reserves to nearly double U.S. oil production and increase natural gas output by 75 percent, the Democrats claim."

Unless these Democrats are petroleum geologists they are just flapping their gums.

The Republicans have the Democrats dead to rights on this drilling issue and if they have any political sense they will ride this issue hard from now until November 4.

 

[YOUTUBECANBESAVED]

"Meanwhile, Bush met secretly with Florida's then-governor -- his brother Jeb -- a foe of offshore drilling. They agreed to have the federal government buy back the leases for $115 million and place a moratorium on drilling at the Dome until 2011. There are now 140 actual leased tracts there that can't be drilled, reports Lisa Flavin, a senior policy adviser at the American Petroleum Institute in Washington."


"When President Bush suddenly flip-flopped this month and said he favored drilling on the Outer Continental shelf, Democrats accused him of wanting to give more land to Big Oil. Thundered Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts: "Oil companies already own 68 million acres of drillable land and sea, which is the size of Georgia and Illinois combined, but they're not producing there." They should use it or lose it, he added. But those acres include the Destin Dome!"


Like I said 8 years under two oil men and they did nothing but perhaps they did nothing so they could over reach later. Now we have another politican Newt Gingrich playing his game.

I still think the American people want to hear how we are going to get off the addiction to oil rather than how to keep enabling it.

Perhaps a bluegrass song to remind us to be better stewards and long for clean energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NB0MPvDWGw


Bluegrass lives!

 

[Bible-boy]

68 million acres leased to oil companys is 50 times the size of ANWR , this is real land leased to oil companys. The oil companys said yes to these lands they did not say no. This is land that is on land and off shore, I think they lost an opportunity to win the debate by doing nothing for all these years then want to over reach and grab more public land , when they have not done anything to the ones they have.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX4EznYLtVU

No one is against drilling now it is just that they have land and can drill now this has been made into a political football because people are trying score points politically and it is an election year.

We as Americans must be careful of corporate welfare and land grabs by big oil when we have given them plenty to work with. those lands are ours and not big oil and we have by all accounts given them the right to drill on and offshore with
68 million acres worth that is just a fact.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111184/

http://www.ewg.org/oil_and_gas/execsumm.php

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92768094&ft=1&f=3

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iHcuoEcit0_kR272HwGKm6sL1K6gD921NR480

"The 68 million acres under lease to oil companies has potential reserves to nearly double U.S. oil production and increase natural gas output by 75 percent, the Democrats claim."

The size or amout of land being leased means nothing if, like the oil companies are saying, there is no (or limited risky) oil under those acres. Who knows how to find oil undergound, the oil companies and their experts, or Democrat politicians pandering to their enviro-liberal base? Again, there are proven oil fields under government control where drilling is currently prohibited. So the government can terminate the currenly leased lands because the oil companies are saying there is no (or limited risky) oil. Likewise, the government can issue new leases where the oil companies say proven oil fields exist with requirements that the oil companies must begin to drill and produce.

I disagree Bible-Boy Wind,Solar,Electric Cars, and more are viable.

There is no solar, wind, or electric car that can perform as well as my 1995 Chevy Suburban period. They simply can not run as long, as fast, or as strong as it does on a tank full of gas. They can not carry the same payload. The technology as it is today simply can not compete with oil/gas powered vehicles. Likewise, there is no wind, solar, electric airplane that can fly several 100 people and their luggage from the U.S. to Europe, Africa, Asia, etc. There is no wind, solar, or electric truck that can move freight across the country the way a desiel 18 wheeler can today.

People in this nation want to get off the addiction

First, it is not an addiction. It is a simple reality that we currently use oil/gas for fuel for our vehicles. Second, no one in the drill here, drill now, pay less crowd is against developing the next technology to replace oil/gas. We simply do not want to pay artifically inflated prices at the pump while that technology is being developed.

...and i would encourage everyone to look into T. Boone Pickens plan he states quite seriously and he is a successful oil man to boot "We cannot drill ourselves out of this"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2bOug1d20c

Bible-Boy take the time to look at T. Boone Pickens Plan, I trust him over Newt Gingrich a politician.

I'm all for supporting such a plan. However, until such things are fully developed, proven successful, and affordable to the "little guy" I don't want to be paying artifically inflated prices at the pump while that technology is being developed. Likewise, T. Boone is a business man who sees an opportunity to get out in front of the coming change from oil to whatever is going to replace it. However, he is simply wrong when he says, "We can't drill our way out of this." The goal is not to drill our way out of the dependence on oil. The goal is to drill and increase the supply of oil to drive down the market price while the new technology is being developed and implemented and to get us away from relying on middle-east oil. What is the problem with this approach?

 

[KenH]

Perhaps a bluegrass song to remind us to be better stewards and long for clean energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NB0MPvDWGw

Bluegrass lives!

Cute.

Fortunately, we have come a long way in the oil industry in being environmentally responsible compared to the time of the events in the song.

 

[KenH]

The goal to to drill and increase the supply of oil to drive down the market price while the new technology is being developed and implemented

Bingo! :thumbs:

 

[billwald]

Who do you all think owns the oil in the ground? DUTCH Shell and BRITISH Pet. Why should they sell it for less than market price?

 

[Revmitchell]

Well, Pastor Mitchell, you might be interested in the story of Destin Dome:

"Those bans didn't cover the Destin Dome, which went on the block in 1984. Chevron and partners Conoco and Murphy Exploration & Production drilled three exploratory wells there in 1987, 1989 and 1995 that found an estimated 2.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. But to actually produce gas, Chevron needed federal and state approval.

Chevron submitted a development plan to the state and the Interior Department for review in 1996 -- an inauspicious time for offshore drillers. George Bush I in 1990 had placed a temporary moratorium on new drilling off South Florida, fulfilling a campaign promise to Sunshine State voters. Then, in 1995, the Clinton administration came out against new lease sales, and Florida's congressional crew, both Republicans and Democrats, successfully supported another moratorium on new drilling to replace one that had expired.

Chevron proposed drilling 12 to 21 gas wells. Florida bureaucrats took their sweet time before nixing the application two years later. Chevron appealed to the Department of Commerce, which can overturn state decisions. Reluctant to upset anyone, Commerce simply stalled. Under the law, there is no deadline on appeals. Chevron sued the federal government in 2000, claiming it had been denied a timely and fair review of its plans.

Clinton stepped down, and Bush II was sworn in. His Commerce Department twiddled its thumbs, too. Meanwhile, Bush met secretly with Florida's then-governor -- his brother Jeb -- a foe of offshore drilling. They agreed to have the federal government buy back the leases for $115 million and place a moratorium on drilling at the Dome until 2011. There are now 140 actual leased tracts there that can't be drilled, reports Lisa Flavin, a senior policy adviser at the American Petroleum Institute in Washington.

When President Bush suddenly flip-flopped this month and said he favored drilling on the Outer Continental shelf, Democrats accused him of wanting to give more land to Big Oil. Thundered Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts: "Oil companies already own 68 million acres of drillable land and sea, which is the size of Georgia and Illinois combined, but they're not producing there." They should use it or lose it, he added. But those acres include the Destin Dome!

Chevron took its lease refund to help finance a $12 billion project in Angola to produce liquefied natural gas for shipment here. Ironically, a major gas pipeline between Texas and Tampa runs right by the Destin Dome."

- rest at http://online.barrons.com/article/SB121460971892012411.html?mod=googlenews_barrons

The offshore Drilling issue is one of the primary reasons Jeb was so popular in Florida. And thanks for confirming what I heard.

 

[Bible-boy]

Who do you all think owns the oil in the ground? DUTCH Shell and BRITISH Pet. Why should they sell it for less than market price?

ECON101 The Law of Supply and Demand. When supply increases the market responds in decreased prices. You can't escape the law of supply and demand.