100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: American Oil Reserves | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Creating drama in this thread will not be tolerated.
Play nice people or don't play at all. Mod Don |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to add something new and directly related to this particular oil field,
Oil companies given right to 'harass' polar bears 23 June 2008 NewScientist.com news service http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19826613.500-oil-companies-given-right-to-harass-polar-bears.html IT'S just over a month since the US government designated the polar bear as an endangered species. Now the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) stands accused of giving oil companies a "blank cheque to harass polar bears". The row revolves around the seven oil companies that paid $2.6 billion in February for the rights to look for oil in the Chukchi Sea, off the coast of Alaska. Some 2000 polar bears live in the region - a significant chunk of the estimated 20,000 to 25,000 bears worldwide, and the companies were worried that environmental groups might take legal action to prevent the animals being disturbed. But the FWS issued regulations last week permitting firms to disturb "small numbers" of bears and walruses without fear of prosecution as long as they report each incident and take steps to minimise the animals' stress. If underwater sonar is being used, for instance, engineers must stop surveying should a bear swim close by. The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group based in Tucson, Arizona, says that the decision will allow "essentially unlimited harassment of polar bears". Researchers are also worried. Steven Amstrup, a polar bear expert at the US Geological Survey in Anchorage, Alaska, says no one really knows how the exploration will affect the bears because the Chukchi populations have not been studied in detail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the high prices of oil is in a large part due to speculation and hedge funds.
Friday, May 23rd, 2008 Cashing in on Commodities: What’s Driving the Oil Bull, How Much Further It Will Go, and How Investors Can Profit Editor’s Note: This is the second installment of a new Money Morning series highlighting investment opportunities created by the global bull market in commodities. By Jason Simpkins Associate Editor Exactly 12 months ago, West Texas Intermediate crude oil was trading at just under $63 a barrel. Yesterday (Thursday) futures prices for that benchmark grade of crude oil hit the latest in a succession of record highs, punching through the $135-a-barrel mark on the New York Mercantile Exchange, before sliding back. In other words, in only a single year, crude-oil prices have more than doubled, soaring 115% - and setting 27 separate new records along the way. And while a short-term correction may be in the offing - especially with fears of a U.S. recession ebbing - the reality is that oil prices are nowhere near the end of their run, meaning the United States is really an economic system that’s at the crossroads Sorry I don't have the link for that you will have to verify it youself. The point is that "in only a single year, crude-oil prices have more than doubled, soaring 115% - and setting 27 separate new records along the way" Source Wikepedia Institutional investors are organisations which pool large sums of money and invest those sums in companies. They include banks, insurance companies, retirement or pension funds, hedge funds and mutual funds. Their role in the economy is to act as highly specialised investors on behalf of others. For instance, an ordinary person will have a pension from his employer. The employer gives that person's pension contributions to a fund. The fund will buy shares in a company, or some other financial product. Funds are useful because they will hold a broad portfolio of investments in many companies. This spreads risk, so if one company fails, it will be only a small part of the whole fund's investment. Institutional investors will have a lot of influence in the management of corporations because they will be entitled to exercise the voting rights in a company. They can engage in active role in corporate governance. Furthermore, because institutional investors have the freedom to buy and sell shares, they can play a large part in which companies stay solvent, and which go under. Influencing the conduct of listed companies, and providing them with capital are all part of the job of investment management. ----------------------------------------- http://seekingalpha.com/article/80484-oil-price-rise-demand-supply-speculation Hiding as commercial accounts, thru a Commodity Futures Trading Commission exemption to avoid speculative position limits, these institutional-investors use commodities index-futures to hold positions in oil. But not as traditional buyers of oil would, but as financial speculations. This feeds the demand side, without ever, actually demanding oil. Eighty two percent (82%) of WTI futures [net increase from 01/01/03 to 03/12/08] was purchased by institutional-investors [Testimony of Michael Masters before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, p.3, May 20, 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Still, there might be hope for us because as we speak they are being exposed, this is a short summary of the hearing held on June 3 2008 http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=cong_test |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough Quick Peace OMG!!! A thinking & REASONABLE opponent!!!! How refreshing...   what I've been waiting for....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creating drama in this thread will not be tolerated. Play nice people or don't play at all. Mod Don Sorry Mod... I will try to be kinder & gentler... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the high prices of oil is in a large part due to speculation and hedge funds. Friday, May 23rd, 2008 Cashing in on Commodities: What’s Driving the Oil Bull, How Much Further It Will Go, and How Investors Can Profit Editor’s Note: This is the second installment of a new Money Morning series highlighting investment opportunities created by the global bull market in commodities. By Jason Simpkins Associate Editor Exactly 12 months ago, West Texas Intermediate crude oil was trading at just under $63 a barrel. Yesterday (Thursday) futures prices for that benchmark grade of crude oil hit the latest in a succession of record highs, punching through the $135-a-barrel mark on the New York Mercantile Exchange, before sliding back. In other words, in only a single year, crude-oil prices have more than doubled, soaring 115% - and setting 27 separate new records along the way. And while a short-term correction may be in the offing - especially with fears of a U.S. recession ebbing - the reality is that oil prices are nowhere near the end of their run, meaning the United States is really an economic system that’s at the crossroads Sorry I don't have the link for that you will have to verify it youself. The point is that "in only a single year, crude-oil prices have more than doubled, soaring 115% - and setting 27 separate new records along the way" Source Wikepedia Institutional investors are organisations which pool large sums of money and invest those sums in companies. They include banks, insurance companies, retirement or pension funds, hedge funds and mutual funds. Their role in the economy is to act as highly specialised investors on behalf of others. For instance, an ordinary person will have a pension from his employer. The employer gives that person's pension contributions to a fund. The fund will buy shares in a company, or some other financial product. Funds are useful because they will hold a broad portfolio of investments in many companies. This spreads risk, so if one company fails, it will be only a small part of the whole fund's investment. Institutional investors will have a lot of influence in the management of corporations because they will be entitled to exercise the voting rights in a company. They can engage in active role in corporate governance. Furthermore, because institutional investors have the freedom to buy and sell shares, they can play a large part in which companies stay solvent, and which go under. Influencing the conduct of listed companies, and providing them with capital are all part of the job of investment management. ----------------------------------------- http://seekingalpha.com/article/80484-oil-price-rise-demand-supply-speculation Hiding as commercial accounts, thru a Commodity Futures Trading Commission exemption to avoid speculative position limits, these institutional-investors use commodities index-futures to hold positions in oil. But not as traditional buyers of oil would, but as financial speculations. This feeds the demand side, without ever, actually demanding oil. Eighty two percent (82%) of WTI futures [net increase from 01/01/03 to 03/12/08] was purchased by institutional-investors [Testimony of Michael Masters before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, p.3, May 20, 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Still, there might be hope for us because as we speak they are being exposed, this is a short summary of the hearing held on June 3 2008 http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=cong_test Thank you for bringing this out...I tried to raise this on another post but no one responded. This is all part of the global Kabaal we're in... it's like cutting our nose to spite our face. Every time I hear a politician say "it's gonna be a boon" for..., I want to scream "it's gonna cost us more than what it's worth!!!!" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is something to think about....
Democrats say they are for drilling, but argue that oil companies aren't going after the oil where they already have leases. So why open new, protected areas? they ask. Democrats say there are 68 million acres of federal land and waters where oil and gas companies hold leases, but aren't producing oil. "Democrats support more drilling," he said. "In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production. That is why in the coming days congressional Democrats will vote on 'Use It or Lose It' legislation requiring the big oil companies to develop these resources or lose their leases to someone else who will." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the high prices of oil is in a large part due to speculation and hedge funds. Friday, May 23rd, 2008 Cashing in on Commodities: What’s Driving the Oil Bull, How Much Further It Will Go, and How Investors Can Profit Editor’s Note: This is the second installment of a new Money Morning series highlighting investment opportunities created by the global bull market in commodities. By Jason Simpkins Associate Editor Exactly 12 months ago, West Texas Intermediate crude oil was trading at just under $63 a barrel. Yesterday (Thursday) futures prices for that benchmark grade of crude oil hit the latest in a succession of record highs, punching through the $135-a-barrel mark on the New York Mercantile Exchange, before sliding back. In other words, in only a single year, crude-oil prices have more than doubled, soaring 115% - and setting 27 separate new records along the way. And while a short-term correction may be in the offing - especially with fears of a U.S. recession ebbing - the reality is that oil prices are nowhere near the end of their run, meaning the United States is really an economic system that’s at the crossroads Sorry I don't have the link for that you will have to verify it youself. The point is that "in only a single year, crude-oil prices have more than doubled, soaring 115% - and setting 27 separate new records along the way" Source Wikepedia Institutional investors are organisations which pool large sums of money and invest those sums in companies. They include banks, insurance companies, retirement or pension funds, hedge funds and mutual funds. Their role in the economy is to act as highly specialised investors on behalf of others. For instance, an ordinary person will have a pension from his employer. The employer gives that person's pension contributions to a fund. The fund will buy shares in a company, or some other financial product. Funds are useful because they will hold a broad portfolio of investments in many companies. This spreads risk, so if one company fails, it will be only a small part of the whole fund's investment. Institutional investors will have a lot of influence in the management of corporations because they will be entitled to exercise the voting rights in a company. They can engage in active role in corporate governance. Furthermore, because institutional investors have the freedom to buy and sell shares, they can play a large part in which companies stay solvent, and which go under. Influencing the conduct of listed companies, and providing them with capital are all part of the job of investment management. ----------------------------------------- http://seekingalpha.com/article/80484-oil-price-rise-demand-supply-speculation Hiding as commercial accounts, thru a Commodity Futures Trading Commission exemption to avoid speculative position limits, these institutional-investors use commodities index-futures to hold positions in oil. But not as traditional buyers of oil would, but as financial speculations. This feeds the demand side, without ever, actually demanding oil. Eighty two percent (82%) of WTI futures [net increase from 01/01/03 to 03/12/08] was purchased by institutional-investors [Testimony of Michael Masters before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, p.3, May 20, 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Still, there might be hope for us because as we speak they are being exposed, this is a short summary of the hearing held on June 3 2008 http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=cong_test Thank you for bringing this out...I tried to raise this on another post but no one responded. This is all part of the global Kabaal we're in... it's like cutting our nose to spite our face. Every time I hear a politician say "it's gonna be a boon" for..., I want to scream "it's gonna cost us more than what it's worth!!!!" I was thinking more about the wealthy and investors in big corporations using their free money Bush gave them in tax cuts to invest "Hiding as commercial accounts, thru a Commodity Futures Trading Commission exemption to avoid speculative position limits, these institutional-investors use commodities index-futures to hold positions in oil." . Because jobs sure weren't created with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alrighty....."The price of oil will come down"....you seem to have all the answers ma'am. When will the prices drop? Today? Tommorrow? I would like to know. When they steal all the Iraqi oil. The five biggest oil companies are preparing the economic robbery . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't think 'Big Oil' will drop its price - even with this find? Why is everything you post slamming "the libs?" How can bipartisanship ever be reached with attitudes like yours? No, I don't think 'Big Oil' will drop its price. They will gouge every penny out of us that they can. Free market? Look up "Oligarchy." I think one of the biggest reasons not to tap our reserves is national security. Some day, and it may not be that long, the middle east will run dry, and we'll be sitting on pools of oil. Hopefully by then, we'll have transitioned off the earth polluting poisons and onto sustainable sources. I agree with you concerning our oil reserves! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is something to think about.... Democrats say they are for drilling, but argue that oil companies aren't going after the oil where they already have leases. So why open new, protected areas? they ask. Democrats say there are 68 million acres of federal land and waters where oil and gas companies hold leases, but aren't producing oil. "Democrats support more drilling," he said. "In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production. That is why in the coming days congressional Democrats will vote on 'Use It or Lose It' legislation requiring the big oil companies to develop these resources or lose their leases to someone else who will." Got to it before I did but this is true. There is a confusion on why we do not use our own resources. I think one person touched on the fact that if we utilize others resources until they do not have them anymore then we will be holding all the cards. It is not the democrats or libs who are preventing this from happening it is the big oil companies who have "contracts or interest" in foreign oil who are hedging these facts and our illustrious president has lots of "interest" in Saudi and such. So I would think and read before I blame dems or libs for these problems. There is nothing wrong with protecting what is left of our wild country or animals. It will be soon enough that they are extinct and the land is populated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is something to think about.... Democrats say they are for drilling, but argue that oil companies aren't going after the oil where they already have leases. So why open new, protected areas? they ask. Democrats say there are 68 million acres of federal land and waters where oil and gas companies hold leases, but aren't producing oil. "Democrats support more drilling," he said. "In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production. That is why in the coming days congressional Democrats will vote on 'Use It or Lose It' legislation requiring the big oil companies to develop these resources or lose their leases to someone else who will." Sounds good to me!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is something to think about.... Democrats say they are for drilling, but argue that oil companies aren't going after the oil where they already have leases. So why open new, protected areas? they ask. Democrats say there are 68 million acres of federal land and waters where oil and gas companies hold leases, but aren't producing oil. "Democrats support more drilling," he said. "In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production. That is why in the coming days congressional Democrats will vote on 'Use It or Lose It' legislation requiring the big oil companies to develop these resources or lose their leases to someone else who will." Got to it before I did but this is true. There is a confusion on why we do not use our own resources. I think one person touched on the fact that if we utilize others resources until they do not have them anymore then we will be holding all the cards. It is not the democrats or libs who are preventing this from happening it is the big oil companies who have "contracts or interest" in foreign oil who are hedging these facts and our illustrious president has lots of "interest" in Saudi and such. So I would think and read before I blame dems or libs for these problems. There is nothing wrong with protecting what is left of our wild country or animals. It will be soon enough that they are extinct and the land is populated. Yeah...even if it means bankrupting the country in the process??? I don't think so... Well there goes your theories of blaming Bush & haliburton when there are MANY reasons holding up the technological advancements .... Oil Oil Oil!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is something to think about.... Democrats say they are for drilling, but argue that oil companies aren't going after the oil where they already have leases. So why open new, protected areas? they ask. Democrats say there are 68 million acres of federal land and waters where oil and gas companies hold leases, but aren't producing oil. "Democrats support more drilling," he said. "In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production. That is why in the coming days congressional Democrats will vote on 'Use It or Lose It' legislation requiring the big oil companies to develop these resources or lose their leases to someone else who will." Got to it before I did but this is true. There is a confusion on why we do not use our own resources. I think one person touched on the fact that if we utilize others resources until they do not have them anymore then we will be holding all the cards. It is not the democrats or libs who are preventing this from happening it is the big oil companies who have "contracts or interest" in foreign oil who are hedging these facts and our illustrious president has lots of "interest" in Saudi and such. So I would think and read before I blame dems or libs for these problems. There is nothing wrong with protecting what is left of our wild country or animals. It will be soon enough that they are extinct and the land is populated. Yeah...even if it means bankrupting the country in the process??? I don't think so... Well there goes your theories of blaming Bush & haliburton when there are MANY reasons holding up the technological advancements .... Oil Oil Oil!!!! If Bush is pushing it, that means our coastlines are safe. He has a brown thumb when it comes to political issues these days. And I actually think McBush and McSame both have such guilty conscience that they subconsciencely want to lose. i don't think all those rich republicans in Florida would be happy if they did start drilling there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is something to think about.... Democrats say they are for drilling, but argue that oil companies aren't going after the oil where they already have leases. So why open new, protected areas? they ask. Democrats say there are 68 million acres of federal land and waters where oil and gas companies hold leases, but aren't producing oil. "Democrats support more drilling," he said. "In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production. That is why in the coming days congressional Democrats will vote on 'Use It or Lose It' legislation requiring the big oil companies to develop these resources or lose their leases to someone else who will." Got to it before I did but this is true. There is a confusion on why we do not use our own resources. I think one person touched on the fact that if we utilize others resources until they do not have them anymore then we will be holding all the cards. It is not the democrats or libs who are preventing this from happening it is the big oil companies who have "contracts or interest" in foreign oil who are hedging these facts and our illustrious president has lots of "interest" in Saudi and such. So I would think and read before I blame dems or libs for these problems. There is nothing wrong with protecting what is left of our wild country or animals. It will be soon enough that they are extinct and the land is populated. Yeah...even if it means bankrupting the country in the process??? I don't think so... Well there goes your theories of blaming Bush & haliburton when there are MANY reasons holding up the technological advancements .... Oil Oil Oil!!!! If Bush is pushing it, that means our coastlines are safe. He has a brown thumb when it comes to political issues these days. And I actually think McBush and McSame both have such guilty conscience that they subconsciencely want to lose. i don't think all those rich republicans in Florida would be happy if they did start drilling there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wait, wait, I bet you know what Im going to say, McConfused, while taking the NeoCon Bush's mirror position has called for removing bans that would permit more areas become available for Offshore Oil drilling. Even though Oil companies already hold leases on thousands of acres which they currently never pursue. Now there is proof from a Gov study that McConfused following Bush's lead conviently choses not to mention to the public! You judge, why do you think they would fail to mention this? The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant. Similarly, lower 48 natural gas production is not projected to increase substantially by 2030 as a result of increased access to the OCS. Cumulatively, lower 48 natural gas production from 2012 through 2030 is projected to be 1.8 percent higher in the OCS access case than in the reference case. Production levels in the OCS access case are projected at 19.0 trillion cubic feet in 2030, a 3-percent increase over the reference case projection of 18.4 trillion cubic feet. However, natural gas production from the lower 48 offshore in 2030 is projected to be 18 percent (590 billion cubic feet) higher in the OCS access case (Figure 21). In 2030, the OCS access case projects a decrease of $0.13 in the average wellhead price of natural gas (2005 dollars per thousand cubic feet), a decrease of 250 billion cubic feet in imports of liquefied natural gas, and an increase of 360 billion cubic feet in natural gas consumption relative to the reference case projections. In addition, despite the increase in production from previously restricted areas after 2012, total natural gas production from the lower 48 OCS is projected generally to decline after 2020. Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is something to think about.... Democrats say they are for drilling, but argue that oil companies aren't going after the oil where they already have leases. So why open new, protected areas? they ask. Democrats say there are 68 million acres of federal land and waters where oil and gas companies hold leases, but aren't producing oil. "Democrats support more drilling," he said. "In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production. That is why in the coming days congressional Democrats will vote on 'Use It or Lose It' legislation requiring the big oil companies to develop these resources or lose their leases to someone else who will." Got to it before I did but this is true. There is a confusion on why we do not use our own resources. I think one person touched on the fact that if we utilize others resources until they do not have them anymore then we will be holding all the cards. It is not the democrats or libs who are preventing this from happening it is the big oil companies who have "contracts or interest" in foreign oil who are hedging these facts and our illustrious president has lots of "interest" in Saudi and such. So I would think and read before I blame dems or libs for these problems. There is nothing wrong with protecting what is left of our wild country or animals. It will be soon enough that they are extinct and the land is populated. Yeah...even if it means bankrupting the country in the process??? I don't think so... Well there goes your theories of blaming Bush & haliburton when there are MANY reasons holding up the technological advancements .... Oil Oil Oil!!!! If Bush is pushing it, that means our coastlines are safe. He has a brown thumb when it comes to political issues these days. And I actually think McBush and McSame both have such guilty conscience that they subconsciencely want to lose. i don't think all those rich republicans in Florida would be happy if they did start drilling there. ...and I can't wait for the rich limosine libs have to send their illegal slave workers out to the country side to shop. You seem to think it's only REPS that are rich. Rockefeller REPS & Limosine LIBS (DEMS).... they are all the same. Maybe when some here get THAT they will have more credibility... YU think? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Mon 07/14/08 05:19 PM
|
|
This study by the Energy Information Administration, is official Energy Statistics from the US Government!
FROM THE US GOVERNMENT! As you can read there is no, Zero, NADA benefit to opening more Offshore drilling! What you hear coming from the Bush Administration ignores this report even though they must know of its existence. The whole idea that Opening more drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf is nothing more than Election year Politics planted in your mind by the Republicans at a time when you are paying high gas prices. It is another distraction tactic to take the scrutiny off the real cause of rising oil prices. That cause is the Administrations foreign policies in the Middle East! As you can read, opening new offshore drilling will come too little too late to accomplish anything other than the destruction of the environment while putting off the transformation of our country's energy Independence for another 10 to 20 yrs! Wake Up America!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is something to think about.... Democrats say they are for drilling, but argue that oil companies aren't going after the oil where they already have leases. So why open new, protected areas? they ask. Democrats say there are 68 million acres of federal land and waters where oil and gas companies hold leases, but aren't producing oil. "Democrats support more drilling," he said. "In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production. That is why in the coming days congressional Democrats will vote on 'Use It or Lose It' legislation requiring the big oil companies to develop these resources or lose their leases to someone else who will." Got to it before I did but this is true. There is a confusion on why we do not use our own resources. I think one person touched on the fact that if we utilize others resources until they do not have them anymore then we will be holding all the cards. It is not the democrats or libs who are preventing this from happening it is the big oil companies who have "contracts or interest" in foreign oil who are hedging these facts and our illustrious president has lots of "interest" in Saudi and such. So I would think and read before I blame dems or libs for these problems. There is nothing wrong with protecting what is left of our wild country or animals. It will be soon enough that they are extinct and the land is populated. Yeah...even if it means bankrupting the country in the process??? I don't think so... Well there goes your theories of blaming Bush & haliburton when there are MANY reasons holding up the technological advancements .... Oil Oil Oil!!!! If Bush is pushing it, that means our coastlines are safe. He has a brown thumb when it comes to political issues these days. And I actually think McBush and McSame both have such guilty conscience that they subconsciencely want to lose. i don't think all those rich republicans in Florida would be happy if they did start drilling there. ...and I can't wait for the rich limosine libs have to send their illegal slave workers out to the country side to shop. You seem to think it's only REPS that are rich. Rockefeller REPS & Limosine LIBS (DEMS).... they are all the same. Maybe when some here get THAT they will have more credibility... YU think? It's not going to happen, it is just another McCain/Christ flipflop. Christ is hopeing to be VP, but it is just open for debate. But still the wealthy do retire in Florida and Christ does need to listen to his constituents. He can flipflop back and say he decided not to if it's necessary to be elected again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is something to think about.... Democrats say they are for drilling, but argue that oil companies aren't going after the oil where they already have leases. So why open new, protected areas? they ask. Democrats say there are 68 million acres of federal land and waters where oil and gas companies hold leases, but aren't producing oil. "Democrats support more drilling," he said. "In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production. That is why in the coming days congressional Democrats will vote on 'Use It or Lose It' legislation requiring the big oil companies to develop these resources or lose their leases to someone else who will." Got to it before I did but this is true. There is a confusion on why we do not use our own resources. I think one person touched on the fact that if we utilize others resources until they do not have them anymore then we will be holding all the cards. It is not the democrats or libs who are preventing this from happening it is the big oil companies who have "contracts or interest" in foreign oil who are hedging these facts and our illustrious president has lots of "interest" in Saudi and such. So I would think and read before I blame dems or libs for these problems. There is nothing wrong with protecting what is left of our wild country or animals. It will be soon enough that they are extinct and the land is populated. Yeah...even if it means bankrupting the country in the process??? I don't think so... Well there goes your theories of blaming Bush & haliburton when there are MANY reasons holding up the technological advancements .... Oil Oil Oil!!!! If Bush is pushing it, that means our coastlines are safe. He has a brown thumb when it comes to political issues these days. And I actually think McBush and McSame both have such guilty conscience that they subconsciencely want to lose. i don't think all those rich republicans in Florida would be happy if they did start drilling there. ...and I can't wait for the rich limosine libs have to send their illegal slave workers out to the country side to shop. You seem to think it's only REPS that are rich. Rockefeller REPS & Limosine LIBS (DEMS).... they are all the same. Maybe when some here get THAT they will have more credibility... YU think? Nope, they are not the same. Pay close attention to this....Would Jesus be a Republican or Democrat? http://www.right-wing-pseudo-christians.com/jesus-democrat-republican.htm |
|
|
|
|
