Question For Democratic Leadership

[Husker1911]

Originally Posted by gwhunter

First it wasn't the democrats who didn't drill for oil. It was the oil companies who didn't drill for oil. They didn't drill because it wasn't profitable for them. Remember capitalism? Now I will ask again. Why don't they drill on all the leased land they currently have. Maybe because they like these high prices and huge profits?

So it's "Big Oil" responsible for high fuel prices? What about OPEC, how about the competition from China, India, and other burgeoning industrial economies? Do you blame "Big Grocery Stores" for the increase in food prices?

As for the "huge profits," they continue to make the same profit percentage as when prices were far less.

Which party has stymied the construction of new petroleum refineries (39 years since the construction of the last refinery), new power plants, be they coal or nuclear powered? Which party seeks to impose windfall profit taxes on "Big Oil?" (Oh, THAT will spur new investments! Heh!)

Originally Posted by gwhunter

Now I will ask again. Why don't they drill on all the leased land they currently have. Maybe because they like these high prices and huge profits?

A worthy question, and I had to research a little.

"Oil companies "should finish what's on their plate before they go back in line," said Oppenheimer analyst Fadel Gheit.

Some Democrats also charge that oil companies are deliberately not drilling on the land to limit supply and drive up oil prices.

"Big Oil is more interested in pumping up prices and pumping up their own profits rather than pumping more oil," said Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass), who has co-sponsored a bill to charge oil companies a fee for land they hold that's not producing oil. "We should not even begin discussing handing over more public land to the oil companies until they first use [the land] they already hold."

But the oil industry says it pays millions of dollars for these leases, and that it would not make sense to purposely leave the areas untapped.

Rather, years of exploration is required before drilling can even begin. In some cases, no oil is found on leases they hold. In others, drilling the wells and building the pipelines takes years. It is especially hard now that a worldwide boom in oil exploration has pushed up the prices - and timelines - for skilled workers and specialized equipment.

"No one is sitting on leases these days," said Rayola Dougher, senior economic advisor for the American Petroleum Institute. "Those making those assertions don't understand the bidding and leasing process."

Gheit agrees that it's unlikely that hoarding is going on.

With prices at $135 dollars a barrel, everyone is trying to pump as much as they can, he said. But fearing oil prices will eventually fall, the industry is leery about making too many investments in the fields it has - many of which are in deepwater areas that can be pricey to develop.

Instead, they're holding out, hoping the government will open areas closer to shore that would be cheaper to work on."

Oil industry draws fire for leaving leased land untapped - Jun. 23, 2008

Why do you (evidently) and the Democrats insist oil not be obtained from the most economical areas available? It's not logical. Is it a way to punish "Big Oil," whoever they are?

[muddy river]

But fearing oil prices will eventually fall, the industry is leery about making too many investments in the fields it has - many of which are in deepwater areas that can be pricey to develop.

This was my favorite part. Eventually could mean 1 year from now or 50 years from now.

[gwhunter]

3/4 of oil-lease land isn't producing | Deseret News (Salt Lake City) | Find Articles at BNET

Good read on how oil companies are not drilling on current leased federal land and the cost for the lease of the land

[Husker1911]

Hmm, crickets chirping.

So, your suggestion is to make "Big Oil" drill offshore in far deeper water than necessary. This substantially increases the cost of the petroleum produced.

But you also complain about the cost of gasoline at the pump.

Brilliant.

[goose133]

Let's see-Today it was the (R) that blocked the (D) from forcing "big oil" to drill on their unused leases in Alaska or loose the rights and the (R) wanting to let "big oil" drill in that deep water offshore. I still am against drilling in ANWR or offshore. I am an outdoorsman and will not sacrafice what I love in the name of money or greed. We live in the greatest country on earth and we will figure out an alternative.
Goose

[Husker1911]

Originally Posted by goose133

I still am against drilling in ANWR or offshore. I am an outdoorsman and will not sacrafice what I love in the name of money or greed.
Goose

How much petroleum was spilled from the offshore rigs in the Gulf during Katrina? (None)

If you're against allowing drilling from the most effective, economical sites, then you shouldn't blame "big oil" for the price of gasoline.

Why is it being an outdoorsman and advocating more effective drilling is against what you love? Sorry, I don't follow your logic.

[muddy river]

What if the Democrats wanted to drill in ANWR and the Republicans wanted to block them from doing it. Then how would you guys feel about it?

[tmrschessie]

Drill, it don't matter which block of incompetent lawyers is in charge....it is what is best for the nation.

YOU asked... Tom

[Husker1911]

Originally Posted by muddy river

What if the Democrats wanted to drill in ANWR and the Republicans wanted to block them from doing it. Then how would you guys feel about it?

I've truly not been referring to ANWR, but to closer offshore drilling. I don't understand the logic of requiring higher cost-to-produce petroleum production. It's counter-productive to what we citizens hope the result would be.

I doubt the caribou and bears would be affected by ANWR drilling, though.

BTW, I'm voting Libertarian this year.

[goose133]

You do not get to see the oil spills in the gulf the way we see diasters in Alaska because 1) the tides generally flow out to sea and 2) the warmer water disperses oil faster. I am not saying there were huge spills after Katrina just explaining why we see things different. Theyreally do not have alot of spills in Alaska but when they do the harsh fragile area makes clean up nearly impossible. My real point is that you want to blame just one party for this mess and I blame both.

Goose

[Husker1911]

Originally Posted by goose133

My real point is that you want to blame just one party for this mess and I blame both.

Goose

Oh, you're reacting to the title of the thread. OK.

Which party has prevented construction of refineries, which party is now balking at allowing less expensive drilling offshore? Which party continues to throw out the "8-10 years to see results" anthem? Hell, a Democrat president pledged us to land on the moon in less than a decade, and that was accomplished.

It's fair to blame both parties, truly agreed. Extremists from both sides are hampering the progress of this country.

[muddy river]

What if Rush Limbaugh was telling you that drilling in ANWR was a bad idea Tom? Would you still want to do it then? Just kidding. I see your point.

[tmrschessie]

Kidding aside I would not give a rats *** who said it. I am an American first, foremost, and always. If someone is pushing the wrong for their own benifit and not for US...I would call it as I see it.....just my way of doing it. Tom

[gwhunter]

Pickens talks about alternative energy - CNN.com