DO YOUR PART TO LOWER OIL PRICES

[TFord]

Signed!!! nothing wrong with lowering our energy costs AND DEVELOPING alternatives.

[Nickdago]

[The_Blur]

Most oil companies are not drilling to their maximum capacity right now. Opening new lands will not change that. Many oil companies have a great deal of acreage that they do not drill. That land has oil under it, and they don't drill it. The Democrats tried to start debate on a bill that would force oil companies to drill their existing land or lose it to someone who will. This would lower prices more effectively than opening new land to drill because oil companies would rather not drill and keep high profits than drill it to lower prices.

Think for a second. We blame the oil companies and speculators for high prices, and you still think that they are the solution. Giving the power to companies to decide to drill this new land would mean that they will only continue their old habits of land hoarding. Companies will buy rights to the land in Alaska but they will drill at minimum capacity.

I know what you are going to say: "The government places so much regulation on oil drilling and refining that the companies can't make more oil without drilling somewhere else." You are flagrantly wrong. The US government does not limit production in the same way that OPEC countries do. The US has a free market, in theory, that is not as active as it could be because fuel oil is price fixed in the market. If the federal government gets involved by forcing oil companies to increase their drilling, the legislation alone could turn speculators in the other direction.

[Nickdago]

This is an interesting point of view you may want to watch.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=795927426&play=1

[Nickdago]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

Most oil companies are not drilling to their maximum capacity right now. Opening new lands will not change that. Many oil companies have a great deal of acreage that they do not drill. That land has oil under it, and they don't drill it. The Democrats tried to start debate on a bill that would force oil companies to drill their existing land or lose it to someone who will. This would lower prices more effectively than opening new land to drill because oil companies would rather not drill and keep high profits than drill it to lower prices.

Think for a second. We blame the oil companies and speculators for high prices, and you still think that they are the solution. Giving the power to companies to decide to drill this new land would mean that they will only continue their old habits of land hoarding. Companies will buy rights to the land in Alaska but they will drill at minimum capacity.

I know what you are going to say: "The government places so much regulation on oil drilling and refining that the companies can't make more oil without drilling somewhere else." You are flagrantly wrong. The US government does not limit production in the same way that OPEC countries do. The US has a free market, in theory, that is not as active as it could be because fuel oil is price fixed in the market. If the federal government gets involved by forcing oil companies to increase their drilling, the legislation alone could turn speculators in the other direction.

First off how many people really believe that the goverment and Greenies are not doing everything they can to hamper gas and oil exploration as well as the building of new refineries and nuclear power plants.

Second, how many really think if the oil comapnies had land right now that had oil and gas just sittin there waiting for them to pluck out of the ground at 140/barrel would not being doing so right now, if so raise your hand now.

[kevin2323]

:seesaw:

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Nickdago

"I know what you are going to say: "The government places so much regulation on oil drilling and refining that the companies can't make more oil without drilling somewhere else." You are flagrantly wrong. The US government does not limit production in the same way that OPEC countries do. The US has a free market, in theory, that is not as active as it could be because fuel oil is price fixed in the market."

[B]How many people really beleive that the goverment and the Greenie Weenies are not doing everything they can to hamper exploration for oil and gas as well as building new refineries and Nuclear Power plants, if so raise your hand[B[

I'd appreciate if you didn't indirectly call me an idiot for not favoring a party or listening to more than one side of policy. There are plenty of people throwing political accusations about both parties, and I'd rather not return the favor of calling you out on your ignorance of public policy. So please do me the favor of being cordial before damning my opinion. I didn't marginalize you for yours.

The federal government is under the authority of a half Republican Congress and a Republican President, meaning that the bureaucracy is functionally Republican, since their oversight is Republican and a half. In effect, all policy during this time is Republican-dominated, meaning that it is generally pro-business, pro-drilling, and pro-nuclear. I am pro-nuclear, pro-drilling, and pro-business, and I am telling you that I am siding with the Democrats here. What the Republicans are doing is siding with business over consumers by not demanding that the oil companies drill more on the lands they already have.

I cannot believe how little faith you have in our elected government. They represent us, not the companies that are jacking money from our wallets over foreign fuel. You, as a citizen, should be demanding that your government protects your best interests. Maybe if more people like you did that, we wouldn't have a government that handed our debt to communists in China and our wallets to America-hating nations in the Middle East.

[Nickdago]

First off this is not about Dems and Republicans like I said before, this is about what is best for America and Americans. I am not calling you an idiot personally, however I certainly have the right to question your political views and I appoligize if you felt I was bashing you personally.

My position is no matter what party you belong to it only makes sense to drill for oil and natural gas where ever it is least difficult and most cost effective to do so while still building new refineries and nuclear power plants as well as exploring every other potential energy source that can actually be brought to the table cheaply and in the quanity needed to keep America the great country it already is. As I have said I am all for Fusion and Ethanol that actually makes sense and solar and wind that actually works. I mean they are now even using pig pee pee to not only solve the issue of where to put it but to actually make something productive out of it, natural gas.

So this is not about anyones political view this is about doing something about the situation we find ourselves in and using all the resources we have in the great country to meet our goals of energy independence, which like it or not for now includes oil, natural gas and nuclear as well as all the other options already being developed worldwide.

And lets face it really, these pinheads in congress, and I mean all of them, have failed us completely on energy, the border and a number of other major issues. So you may have faith in them but I am starting to wonder if it is not time to clean house (get it) and hopefully get people in their that will stop the partisian bickering and just do what is best for America, PERIOD.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

The federal government is under the authority of a half Republican Congress and a Republican President, meaning that the bureaucracy is functionally Republican, since their oversight is Republican and a half. In effect, all policy during this time is Republican-dominated, meaning that it is generally pro-business, pro-drilling, and pro-nuclear. I am pro-nuclear, pro-drilling, and pro-business, and I am telling you that I am siding with the Democrats here. What the Republicans are doing is siding with business over consumers by not demanding that the oil companies drill more on the lands they already have.

It's not half republican. It is majority held by the democrats. And at it's lowest approval rating in HISTORY... Not because of the dems that are in power but because the whole lot of them are doing nothing... The president can't do anything without congress. So basically it is 1 vs 1 right now. In actuality it is 1 vs 2 because the house is a democrat majority also.
The republicans are asking that more land be opened for drilling. and the democrats are asking that they drill in areas that are already approved. The problem is that the areas that are currently released by the government for drilling are proven to have little or no oil. Thus the movement by the president to expand the available drilling areas known to have worthwhile oil that is much less expensive to obtain. At about 50 miles off the coast and in places like Anwar.

So you think they should do more with what they have, and we think they should go to areas that will produce more less expensively. Our opinion is this will benefit us sooner than trying to drill in places that have no real oil to begin with. The areas that are open to drilling now have been open for over 10 years. You don't think they've scoured every inch of the place to get more oil? Why wouldn't they? It's not there so lets go where we know it is.

Again, Nickdago's question to you is, why wouldn't they produce more oil if they could? Any company is trying to get a larger share of the market. GM included. So why wouldn't oil companies do the same?. if they can get more oil they can sell more oil and make more money.

Originally Posted by The_Blur

I cannot believe how little faith you have in our elected government. They represent us, not the companies that are jacking money from our wallets over foreign fuel. You, as a citizen, should be demanding that your government protects your best interests. Maybe if more people like you did that, we wouldn't have a government that handed our debt to communists in China and our wallets to America-hating nations in the Middle East.

Isn't that the precise point behind this tread. We believe the plan that Newt Gingrich and the president backed largely by the republican members of congress to be the right thing to do. So, we participated in this thread and signed the petition to make sure that our leaders understand what we want.

Which part of our government handed our debt to china and our wallets to the middle east? Careful I wouldn't want you to Bash the republicans or the President here. Since you so eloquently stated that kind of behavior is inappropriate. And a lot of us know, as I'm sure you do, this trend started long before President Bush came into power. In fairness, long before President Clinton also.

[Zieke]

im going to sign as soon as my comp decides to work for me.

I'm also going to throw in my 2 cents. I believe that as of right now we do have the technologies required to decrease this energy crisis.
The problem is the accessability of those energies.
I'm in Northern Idaho and i have yet to see an E85 station, a hybrid station, or anything that has recently come out. We need to start spreading these new energy resources so that they can make a greater impact.

[Nickdago]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

It's not half republican. It is majority held by the democrats. And at it's lowest approval rating in HISTORY... Not because of the dems that are in power but because the whole lot of them are doing nothing... The president can't do anything without congress. So basically it is 1 vs 1 right now. In actuality it is 1 vs 2 because the house is a democrat majority also.
The republicans are asking that more land be opened for drilling. and the democrats are asking that they drill in areas that are already approved. The problem is that the areas that are currently released by the government for drilling are proven to have little or no oil. Thus the movement by the president to expand the available drilling areas known to have worthwhile oil that is much less expensive to obtain. At about 50 miles off the coast and in places like Anwar.

So you think they should do more with what they have, and we think they should go to areas that will produce more less expensively. Our opinion is this will benefit us sooner than trying to drill in places that have no real oil to begin with. The areas that are open to drilling now have been open for over 10 years. You don't think they've scoured every inch of the place to get more oil? Why wouldn't they? It's not there so lets go where we know it is.

Again, Nickdago's question to you is, why wouldn't they produce more oil if they could? Any company is trying to get a larger share of the market. GM included. So why wouldn't oil companies do the same?. if they can get more oil they can sell more oil and make more money.



Isn't that the precise point behind this tread. We believe the plan that Newt Gingrich and the president backed largely by the republican members of congress to be the right thing to do. So, we participated in this thread and signed the petition to make sure that our leaders understand what we want.

Which part of our government handed our debt to china and our wallets to the middle east? Careful I wouldn't want you to Bash the republicans or the President here. Since you so eloquently stated that kind of behavior is inappropriate. And a lot of us know, as I'm sure you do, this trend started long before President Bush came into power. In fairness, long before President Clinton also.

Very well articulated I only wish I could have expressed it as well.

[Nickdago]

Below is an interesting view I found on CNBC which proclaims that maybe both sides can have their cake and eat it too.

Rather than parsing the predictable Democrat vs. Republican dueling over wider offshore drilling, it’s worth noting just how the ineffectual Washington’s feuding is in solving our multiple energy problems.

The good thing, obscured by all the partisan obfuscation, is both sides’ have some merit.

Better yet are the outside the Beltway suggestions, such as that contained in this op-ed piece that ran in the Houston Chronicle from Kenneth Medlock, an energy expert at Houston’s Rice University.

Taking on the charge that more drilling merely extends our ‘oil addiction’ Medlock proposes we earmark all future goverment royalities from new offshore drilling for researching and developing alternative energy, which we currently grossly underfund.

That way, he says, “these domestic resources would indeed serve only as a bridge to a new energy future.” In recent years these royalities average about $6 billion a year - $142 from 1982.

This seems critical because for all the recent bloviating about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, we are actually on a pretty clear course for increased dependence.


We currently import 60 percent but that is set to rise to 68 percent by 2025 when our demand will have soared to 27.9 million barrels per day, up from 20 million in 2003.

Natural gas, which we depend on foreigners for just 15 percent off current needs is set to increase dramatically.

Properly handled it’s possible for newly expanded offshore areas to yield an additional million barrels per day of oil – on top of the 2.25 million to be pumped out per day by 2011 - which could slash our import dependence on Persian Gulf crude oil by about 40 percent, according to Medlock’s reckoning.

Now if that can be accomplished with the zero platform spills (well, nothing greater than 1,00 barrels) over the last 15 years (a far better record than tankers), as documented by a National Academy of Sciences study – well, why not? Maybe energy firms would even be willing to pay more if they don't stick to this impressive record.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Nickdago

Taking on the charge that more drilling merely extends our ‘oil addiction’ Medlock proposes we earmark all future goverment royalities from new offshore drilling for researching and developing alternative energy, which we currently grossly underfund.

That way, he says, “these domestic resources would indeed serve only as a bridge to a new energy future.” In recent years these royalities average about $6 billion a year - $142 from 1982.

YES!

[chadrcr]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

It's not half republican. It is majority held by the democrats. And at it's lowest approval rating in HISTORY... Not because of the dems that are in power but because the whole lot of them are doing nothing... The president can't do anything without congress. So basically it is 1 vs 1 right now. In actuality it is 1 vs 2 because the house is a democrat majority also.
The republicans are asking that more land be opened for drilling. and the democrats are asking that they drill in areas that are already approved. The problem is that the areas that are currently released by the government for drilling are proven to have little or no oil. Thus the movement by the president to expand the available drilling areas known to have worthwhile oil that is much less expensive to obtain. At about 50 miles off the coast and in places like Anwar.

So you think they should do more with what they have, and we think they should go to areas that will produce more less expensively. Our opinion is this will benefit us sooner than trying to drill in places that have no real oil to begin with. The areas that are open to drilling now have been open for over 10 years. You don't think they've scoured every inch of the place to get more oil? Why wouldn't they? It's not there so lets go where we know it is.

Again, Nickdago's question to you is, why wouldn't they produce more oil if they could? Any company is trying to get a larger share of the market. GM included. So why wouldn't oil companies do the same?. if they can get more oil they can sell more oil and make more money.



Isn't that the precise point behind this tread. We believe the plan that Newt Gingrich and the president backed largely by the republican members of congress to be the right thing to do. So, we participated in this thread and signed the petition to make sure that our leaders understand what we want.

Which part of our government handed our debt to china and our wallets to the middle east? Careful I wouldn't want you to Bash the republicans or the President here. Since you so eloquently stated that kind of behavior is inappropriate. And a lot of us know, as I'm sure you do, this trend started long before President Bush came into power. In fairness, long before President Clinton also.

As usual.... you got it all wrong.... just kidding
but approximately 50% of both the Senate and 50% of the House are Republicans...... but I do not think any of them are in control of much
so I will give him the 1 and a 1/2 points.... the rest

They are way past getting the easy oil in most places (West TX) (home)
Saying that the Govt is trying to FORCE oil companies to drill?!?!??! Removing a restriction is hardly forcing someone to drill.... Bush is trying to force the congress to also remove the 'bans' on drilling in 'new' areas.
gobushfinallygotonerightbeenawhile