Bush chides Congress for inaction on oil

Of course this Lame Duck wouldnt take questions. The first question would be " How does this help the consumer at the pumps now"? Obviously he coultn't answer that question because it wouldn't help now or make a difference for many years! He is the standard bearer of the three "L"'s : Loser, Lier, LAME DUCK!

Congress will have plenty of vacation time after they get thrown out in Nov. If my boss hated me as much as Americans hate this congress, I might skip a vacation or two.

For his first 6 years Bush had a Republican majority in Congress; but now it's all the Democats' fault. What a joke!
Don't drill; go solar.

The big oil companies already have control of 42 MILLION ACRES of federal land, but are ONLY DRILLING ON ABOUT 12 acres. Why do they need more when they're not using what they already have? The Democrats tried to put through basically a "use it or lose it" bill a couple weeks ago, but the Republicans shot it down. Said the Dems didn't understand. Yeah, OK. That's like your kid having a plate of food that is still 3/4 full and asking for more. You say, but you still have plenty of food on your plate. Eat that first, and then if you are still hungry, you can have some more. And the kid says, nope, I want more now. And the parent says, oh, ok. Whatever you say. You're the boss.

Giving Big Oil free reign to drill wherever they want won't solve high priced oil now, or in the future. Why has this president done NOTHING about alternative energy except to give lip service to it in a State of the Union address?

Americans will continue to throw Republicans out of Congress. The '06 election started the trend, followed by the three special elections held since then. All won by Democrats.

Americans have seen through the fear and smear, do nothing Republicans, who offer nothing more than four more years of the BushCo failed policies.

Congress should go ahead and create a bill with offshore drilling and increasing the margin requirements of speculators. Offshore drilling won't happen because of the shortage of drill ships (http://www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080718/BUSINESS/807180328). Besides, OPEC members could still create shortages of leased drill ships by leasing them and just having the ships sit.

Passing a bill like this will put the ball back in President Screwup's court and will get to see if the speculation is the cause of our pump prices.

Congress will have plenty of vacation time after they get thrown out in Nov. If my boss hated me as much as Americans hate this congress, I might skip a vacation or two.

Posted by: Hank Reardon | July 30, 2008 11:51 AM

People do not approve of Congress as a whole, but they don't vote on Congress as a whole. They vote for their individual representatives, whom they favor overwhelmingly. From the perspective of an unabashed liberal, I opine that Pelosi has done a terrible job because she has not done anything to bring Murderer Bush to justice. However, her constituents in SF are likely to vote her in again, by overwhelming margins.

Your prediction of everyone in Congress getting thrown out will not come even close to being true, so quit kidding yourself.

As usual, the Loons on the Left continue to show they haven't a clue.
Scot, an announcement that more land or sea is open for drilling will bring DOWN the price of oil NOW, which will be seen at the pump NOW. Anyway, what is the Dem's plan that will immediate impact at the pump?

SouthSideD, much of that land is NOT drillable or tthere is nothing there to drill.
Anyway, the Dems in Congress are not interested in more energy, only less energy. The Dems in Congress are AGAINST the American people, not FOR the American people.

Americans have seen through the fear and smear, do nothing Republicans, who offer nothing more than four more years of the BushCo failed policies.

Posted by: Zook | July 30, 2008 12:10 PM

...and Obama will still lose. That's how pathetic liberals are.

So...will GW "chide" this list of HUNDREDS of "military, NSA and gov employees" who all purchased fake degrees as "experts" to collect tax payer funded salaries with letterhead celebrity?

NOTE the "heavy hitters" on the list
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=15898

"...The first question would be " How does this help the consumer at the pumps now"?..."

Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | July 30, 2008 11:39 AM

Scot - good question- it just might help now- not sure how closely you watching but you had to have seen the almost immediate drop in the futures pricing of crude oil starting the day after Bush removed the exec order prohibiting off shore drilling.

My guess is that the question you really want to ask is; Wow can this energy crisis we are in be spun into a political issue before November?"

Isn't a better question;

How does the congress doing nothing help the consumer at the pumps now"?..."

Pelosi and Ried are preventing any debate or voting on the issue- how is that beneficial?

Apparently, some people commenting here could use a lesson in how markets work. Oil trades in a futures market and trades based on future supply/demand speculation/expectations. If you expect an increase in supply, the market will bake the ingredient into the cake.

The price of oil hasn't gone up based on current supply/demand. It's gone up based on expectations of future supply and demand.

This is the absolute worst congress that the US has ever elected. We need to change it - ASAP!

The new definition of pathetic is John McCain:

It is defined as someone (John McCain) taking money from someone who he believes (Karl Rove) committed the vilist smears against you and your family.

See synomyn: dishonorable.

Bribe Here!

Bribe Now!

McCain/Stevens '08

Is there any record that says they've explored the addition 30 million acres? I seriously doubt it. They would not have been given the land if there wasn't the potential for oil. They just don't want to do it.

Point 2 -- our refineries are at capacity, we have far fewer refineries than we did in 1982, and oil companies do not want to build more. Big oil has pushed out the smaller refineries so they can make bigger profits. And with a prez and vice prez who are long-time oil guys, why would they do anything to try and hold their buddies in check?

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/Oil_and_Gas/articles.cfm?ID=11829

Welcome back heartburn full of gas!

Obviously you dont read or listen to the news or follow the deeds in washington. The dems proposed an energy bill with certain demands on the oil companies to start pumping on the land they already lease. Guess what? Bush and the republicans in congress shot it down!
You guys on the right just dont get it! Blame Blame Blame th edemocrats when the truth of the matter is the blame falls right in the White House! Yo uknow nothing of economics or Wall Street so follow your leader into oblivion

Yeah Hank and you don't realize that those who trade in futures are infinitely more knowledgeable about them than you, unless you happen trade also. If that's the case you probably will be broke unless you are already.

Futures are affected by the supply coming down the line. Lifting this ban would do no more than bump around the price a little bit for one or two news cycles and then resettle.

Bottom line, the oil companies don't know exactly what's out there. Not to mention that it will take years to identify the best wells, equip them and get them online. It will have no immediate effect.
Long term is another case, but the Republicans are trying to sell it as if congress approves it the public will have gas next week, next month or next spring. That is what's deceptive about the Republican rhetoric.

By the way, no one has laid out the argument from both sides about the current 48 million acres that are currently leased, but not being drilled.

The pain the liberals are bringing on Americans is criminal.

Stop the minority extreme left from destroying your country.

"...Is there any record that says they've explored the addition 30 million acres? I seriously doubt it. They would not have been given the land if there wasn't the potential for oil. They just don't want to do it...."

Posted by: SouthSideD | July 30, 2008 12:48 PM

This gives away your misunderstanding of the economics of the issue-

With the recent price of oil at record levels- The only logical explanation for why the oil companies would NOT pursue reserves that they already have the green light for exploration and drilling- would be that there is a good chance that if there is oil reserves- it is not profitable to extract.

Your assertion .."...They just don't want to do it...."
assumes they are not profit driven corporations..

He's right about not taking action. He, his father and Ronald Reagan should have been calling for alternative energy to weed us off of oil years ago. So out of the last 30 years, 20 of them have been wasted. We should be driving electric cars, or flex-fuel cars that burn some type of ethanol. How can you promote oil independence when daddy's fortune is tied up in oil stocks?

Why did John McCain flip-flop last month and decide that offshore drilling was a good idea?

John McCain Got A Gusher Of Oil Money To Do So:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95NSWsNah60&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/29/113226/483/563/558781

Cant Fix Stupid, such an appropriate name for someone who has no clue who is running the country and has been for the past 8 years! Aside from the last two years , Your republicans had control of congress for over 20 years!! And what did they do about the energy crisis? BIG FAT ZERO!!
You guys are really something! Its mind boggling how you place the blame on this congress when you had so many years to do something! LOSERS!

"... So out of the last 30 years, 20 of them have been wasted. We should be driving electric cars, or flex-fuel cars that burn some type of ethanol...."

Posted by: Grandblvd03 | July 30, 2008 1:16 PM

Maybe we should be using alernate energy, but unfortunately, the reality is that we are notable to replace fossil fuels with alternate sources yet, and we still need energy..

our economy's health is completely dependent on energy being cheap- right now, oil is the most efficient, cheap energy source available..

So what is wrong with the idea of developing and opening up as much domestic oil sources as possible- until alternate energy source technologies evolve enough to replace them?

You want this to be a political argument- or to turn it into a "Bush is the problem" issue- But the facts are- this is simply a economic issue that needs to be resolved with a market driven solution..government needs to get out of the way, and let energy producers- produce.

Since Bush lifted the Executive order on no drilling on the OCS and ANWAR the price of oil has gone down almost $20.00. The idiot democrats understand the rules of supply and demand, they are in bed with the environuts who contribute to their election campaigns in a big way. This do-nothing congress being run by someone whos ego is bigger than the sanctuary state (which is going bankrupt because of illegals) that she helps run.

Stuffed suit McCain has already admitted that his off shore drilling proposal is nothing more than a sham ("psychological") to try and rescue his failing presidential hopes.

There's not enough oil off shore or in Anwar to last more than a couple of years and that oil would go on the world market to the highest bidder anyway. The Big Oil companies that the Republicans are in bed with already have miles of offshore leases that they aren't drilling on because they know the price of drilling there isn't worth the few drops of oil that are out there.

This is typical Republic Party propaganda, they run our country in the ground by feeding on our oil dependence and killing any alternative energy exploration bills and then when we start going broke because their Big Oil pals are raping us at the gas pump they claim that everything would be fine if only the Dems would let the Big Oil companies drill some more, make more profit from us and continue our addiction to all things oil. The Republican Party is similar to a snake oil salesman/drug dealer and I can't tell you how happy it's going to make me this fall when the Repuglicans lose both houses of Congress and the White House.

Enjoy your time in the minority Repuglicans, you've earned it!

Heartburn you just dont listen to logic do you. THEY HAVE THE LEASES AND THEY ARE NOT PUMPING!! HELLOOOOOO!! Pay attention!

Southside, what are you afraid will happen if energy companies are given access to shales and off shore drilling here in America? I know you are deeply suspicious of energy companies, but if they say that's where the oil is and it is cost efficient to bring it out, what do you have to lose by letting them drill? Are your real concerns environmental? Is that what this is really about? How about an agreement giving back the unused leases, in exchange for lifting the offshore drilling ban? Would you support that?

Scott, do you really think that because there may not be an immediate reduction at the pump, that is a reason not to tap our own resources? Don't you think that is a little shortsighted? What happens in ten years when we are in the same position and wished we had started drilling in 2008? Will it be worth it to start then, or would the same "no instant gratification" argument apply? America imported oil mainly because it was cheaper to import it from foreign countries that to tap our own supply. That dynamic has changed. I think the future will be alternative forms of energy, but the bridge between now and then will be made out of crude, and we would be insane not to tap our own resources with the price of crude what it is today.

Of course drilling won't help now. Nothing will help right this second. However if our government would've taken action and started drilling 5, 10, or 15 years ago we wouldn't be hurting so bad at the pump. The past inaction is what brought us to this stage, but the current inaction only delays our problems that much more. We need to start drilling now and lift the moratoriums. Yes, the Oil companies have lots of land to drill on but they are tied up with thousands of law suits from environmental wackos. They need judicial relief and they need the okay from Congress to start drilling elsewhere. The people want instant relief, and it doesn't exist, but the Democrats in Congress are using that instant gratification desire to fight Bush at every step because it's an election year. It's all political. When will our politicians start thinking for us? When are they going to step up to the plate and make the decisions that are going to benefit us and not their election polls?

Shawn and Herbie, your arguments are to maintain the status quo! So if we lift the bans and start to drill, that will only prolong us into oil dependance until the next time we run out! THAT IS THE POINT! its time, to put all of our resources into alternative energies now! Drilling now will not help at the pumps now - as you and your republicans want middle America to believe. It will only prolong the inevitable AGAIN! Get over it, lose your SUV's and try to understand that protecting the environment benefits us all not just the Democrats! You want to live in a garbage dump, move to a landfill!

From June 18, 2008:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25241280/

"Bush said offshore drilling could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil over time, although it would take years for production to start."

From the University of Nebraska at Omaha:

http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/Sidebar/OilConsumption.html

"Currently, the United States consumes 19.6 million barrels per day, of oil, which is more than 25% of the world's total."

From http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question417.htm

"If you look at a page like this one, it shows that the United States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil each day."

From the Star Tribune, April 24:

http://www.startribune.com/business/18148539.html

"The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) this month predicted that U.S. consumption will drop by 1 percent this year, to 20.6 million barrels of oil per day."

SO -- if our DAILY consumption is GREATER than what offshore drilling will bring in -- OVER TIME -- seriously, what's the use? The ONLY REASON is for the benefit of the oil companies.

All the back and forth...

A few relevant points:
1. There are in fact 91 million acres leased, 23 million are producing; the remaing 68 million are under exploration or deemed unlikely to produce
2. Opening up more land for drilling will not have a significant impact at the pump- here's why: there will of course be a short down trend in oil prices and subsequently a short term reduction in gas prices not unlike the gas tax holiday. Speculation will recover from the "psychological" effect and oil prices will once again climb, the reality is that the now open areas will not produce oil for 7-10 years. Know of any speculators/traders that are looking at the price of a barrel of oil in 2015? Neither do I.
3. It is political. If the Democrats get bullied into allowing drilling, prices will likely go down some. The republicans can then say "we told you" and John M looks better. When oil goes back up they can blame the "war on terror" in the Middle East.
If Obama wins the election; when oil goes back up the neo-cons will blame it on the Democratic administration and policies.

Scot, you're arguing semantics now. How is something we haven't allowed for 20 years the "status quo?" You've become a parody of yourself.

Heartburn you just dont listen to logic do you. THEY HAVE THE LEASES AND THEY ARE NOT PUMPING!! HELLOOOOOO!! Pay attention!

Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | July 30, 2008 2:04 PM

I listen to logic... when I hear- it...

It will be interesting when you start to communicate in other than your party line- or even with anything resembling logic. But I am not holding my breath..

Why do you suppose the available leased areas are not being explored- and the oil companies are not pumping??

How do you explain a profit motivated corporation ignoring a source of oil that at todays pricing brings huge profits?

Congress has no business taking a recess at this point. With our energy needs and skyrocketing costs, Bush should call a special session and tell them to hammer out a deal - not table everything and bury it in committees.

Get to work!

Scott, do you seriously dispute that our economy is going to be at least partially dependent on oil for the foreseeable future? I agree that the future is alternative forms of energy, but while that is being developed, we will need to bridge the gap. Do you seriously dispute this? If not, and you acknowledge we will need crude oil for the foreseeable future, why would we continue to transfer wealth to third world dictators instead of tapping our own supply?

Southside, it is not an all or none proposition. No one is claiming that our drilling would have to satisfy 100% of our crude needs for it to be worth it. A dent would suffice for me, as every penny of wealth not transferred to OPEC countries is a benefit, in my opinion. Is that your real fear? That the drilling would bring in insufficient amounts of oil? You really think that is a good reason to continue the ban on offshore drilling? There are people who think otherwise. Why not let them put there money where their mouth is and see if they can tap cheap oil? If they fail, they fail.

Southside, the fact that you guys can't see the obvious is mindboggling. So what if offshore drilling won't provide us with every drop of oil we need? It'll still be more than a drop in the bucket of the $700 billion and counting that we've forked over to foreign countries for oil. The US generates less than 20% of our own oil. In the '70s we found 70% of our own oil. If we can get that back up to even 50%, and keep the money in American hands, how can you honestly say that's a bad thing? By increasing the supply we'll force our OPEC trading partners - like Venezuela - to lower their prices due to increased supply and make oil more affordable for the average american. What is seriously wrong with that?

Herbie H -- a dent?? We'd only get ONE DAYS worth!! Woo Hoo! Let's destroy the environment and put billions more in the pockets of big oil for ONE MEASLY DAY!!!

Posted by: Herbie H. | July 30, 2008 4:30 PM

Herbie H- there you go being reasonable...

Once the argument moves away from "its your parties fault" and political posturing - the economics and reality of the energy crisis we are in the concepts become pretty simple...

For many this has nothing to do with doing the right thing- and everything to do with not allowing the other side of the aisle be successful in providing the solution.

John D, what part of this do you refuse to understand? Drilling will not lower gas prices. The Bush Regime continues to try to insinuate that it does but they've already admitted that it won't. Ditto for John McCain even after he's flip flopped for drilling (and collected $1.1 million in contributions from big oil since). We all know it will do nothing for the consumer. Nothing John. The only ones that will gain is Big Oil which is pretty much consistent with the entire Bush legacy.

Southside, what's your alternative? Continue to fork it all over to Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and other countries where almost everyone hates us? Continue to let the price skyrocket until no one can afford to go to work? Do you really think doing nothing is an option. There's a lot more than one day of oil available, too. That's just politics and has nothing to do with reality.

I haver nothing more to say to you guys. Its black or white between all of us. This is what has destroyed Americas promise. Bipartisan Government closing republicans and conservatives who see nothing into the future just status quo money in their own pockets. Good luck to all of you and good bye!

Herbie H -- a dent?? We'd only get ONE DAYS worth!! Woo Hoo! Let's destroy the environment and put billions more in the pockets of big oil for ONE MEASLY DAY!!!

Posted by: SouthSideD | July 30, 2008 4:50 PM

Ok- we use approx 20M BBL / Day- one estimate of OFF Shore reserves is that there are +20billion barrels ..

when you divide the total available (20 billion) by the daily need (20Million) you will get about 3 years worth of oil...

This also equals +10 years of oil if we use the offshore reserves for 30% of our total requirement-

Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | July 30, 2008 5:03 PM

Don't go away mad... just- oh never mind-

Ok- we use approx 20M BBL / Day- one estimate of OFF Shore reserves is that there are +20billion barrels ..

when you divide the total available (20 billion) by the daily need (20Million) you will get about 3 years worth of oil...

This also equals +10 years of oil if we use the offshore reserves for 30% of our total requirement-

Posted by: heartburn | July 30, 2008 5:08 PM

operative word being ESTIMATE...

The acreage includes vast stretches of land that spread out over Nevada and reach north and east over the Rockies, thinning as they stretch toward Canada to disparate specs on the map.

There are smaller and more isolated patches to the east along the mountain ridges of Appalachia and further to the south above the Gulf of Mexico, and huge chunks of northern Alaska and lesser stretches on its southern banks.

A huge chunk of the overall acreage is the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, the zone of federal waters extending about 200 miles offshore.

President Bush and those supporting more drilling say the United States is unwisely cutting itself off from new energy sources as the nation brings in most of its oil from abroad.

The Interior Department has estimated 18 billion barrels of oil can be pulled from waters off the U.S. coast that are currently off limits. But almost everyone agrees it would be years before that oil could be retrieved.

And what do we do when those offshore and protected sites are depleted? Why should we use up every last drop of oil available to us in the future RIGHT NOW?

There is no way in heck that opening up those sites to drill right now is going to have any impact on current prices. Have you checked the price of oil today? Up almost $5/bbl. So I guess dear leader's executive order isn't all that effective after all.

Posted by: Jolly Roger | July 30, 2008 5:25 PM

Yes - so it could be more or less-

Be conservative and say the estimate is off by half...do you not see the value in replacing a third of our oil needs for 5 years of from domestic production ??

Throw in ANWR, other domestic reserves, coal shale and then what does the energy future look like to you-

seems to me that buys a whole lot of time to develop alternate sources ...

Many of the people posting comments have shown their profound ignorance and gullibility.

Oil leases grant the lessee the ability to EXPLORE, it does not guarantee that any oil will be found or that it can be recovered economically. If Congress insists that oil companies drill on all leases, Congress should guarantee that they will find oil or else they (Congress) is selling a defective product and should pay restitution and penalties.

No, athena, we get serious about technology changes like McCain's electric car battery and wind power and, most importantly, plan new communities where americans can all live densely and all walk, bike or take a train to work. But if you think we're anywhere near that day when light rail and a better amtrak can replace the car then you must be living at least 20 years in the future. Drilling here, now would buy us that chance to design our cities and transportation infrastructure right.

It was recent reported that Nancy Pelosi indicated that she will block House debate regarding opening additional offshore areas to oil drilling and further commented that her rationale for blocking debate is "I'm trying to save the planet."

It is the height of an imperial Congress for Pelosi to not allow debate and votes because of her belief she is "saving the planet." It is apparent that the special interest environmentalist lobby has convinced her to disregard what is in the best interests of the country and the US economy.

The US Constitution defines the responsibilities and authorities of the Congress and does not delegate Congress with the task of "saving the planet." It does, however, task the House with initiating budget bills which, to date, have not even been discussed on the floor of the House.

Pelosi should focus on doing the job to which the Constitution has delegated to the Congress.

She has been an abysmal failure ever since her historic elevation to Speaker of the House. It is not a history of which anyone should be proud.

There is no way in heck that opening up those sites to drill right now is going to have any impact on current prices. Have you checked the price of oil today? Up almost $5/bbl. So I guess dear leader's executive order isn't all that effective after all.

Posted by: athena | July 30, 2008 5:33 PM

athena- your right, opening up the offshore reserves won't help soon-

But do you plan on needing affordable energy in 5, 10 15 years?

An unexpected shortfall in gasoline SUPPLIES is the cause of todays spike- so in your view, when SUPPLY shortage cause increases in pricing you fault Bush
So who do you credit when the SUPPLY increases, and prices decrease?

Rememebr this is NOT a DEMAND/SUPPLY issue- it is all Bush's fault..

Also - Today's spike Couldn't be caused by the likelihood of Congress going on vacation w/o voting or even debating anything that resembles an energy policy ( the ban on offshore drilling is expiring soon)..could it?

If this is so gosh-darn important to our future, why hasn't Bush done the first thing about freeing us from our addiction to oil? He says, He's done his part. What would that be? Invading Iraq?

Scotty - L words such as Liberals - Liars, losers, etc...

Two your second ignorant point - see my response below to SouthsideD - oil companies do not buy leases just to sit in them, they buy them evaluate them for potential reserves and then try to produce on the those leases they feel have promise. The last thing the oil companies want to do is waste money and time drilling dry holes.

Grandblvd - Reagan Bush41 and Bush43 should have called for alternative energy - I guess Clinton gets a pass? I guess all those electric cars would be running on wind power. We have seen the effect of corn ethanol on corn prices. If ethanol is so good, why doesn't the dem Congress lift the tariff on sugar based ethanol?

Rupert - and while you are passing blame, let's not forget Clinton not signing drilling in ANWR 13 years ago.

Southsie D - first I have to educate you on Buffet's tax rate, now on oil exploration. The gov't issues the leases to the oil companies, the oil companies pay money to the gov't. Some of the lease will hold contain no oil and natural gas, other will contain oil and natural gas. It is up to the oil companies to determine which leases are economically feasable to drill on and which aren't. Either way, the gov't makes money off the leases.

Some of the leases that they currently have either contain no oil or oil that is not economically feaseable to get. That is why those leases are not being drilled.

Then for those who are afraid that the oil will be shipped out of the country, they do not understand that oil is a global market. It would still increase global oil supply and thus reduce prices (everything else being equal). For example, if the oil in ANWR were to be shipped to Asia, that would mean that the supply that Asai used to get from the the middle east would be freed-up to be sold elsewhere at the lower price that I expalined above.

Two your second post - why would the oil companies purchases the leases if they had no intent of exploring. They don't like throwing money around.

To you 3:15 post - what good will producing all of this oil do if it can't meet our countries fukll demand? It will lower world prices of which we are a net buyer. It will mean that we are sending $700 billion/ yr to countries that don't like us.

To your 4:50 post - as far as ruining the environment - Here is one toney town that co-exists with oil wells.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a5fyvudrWEoo&refer=home

Heartburn - Scotty usually goes away a loser from logical arguements - he throws a little hissy fit and comes back tomorrow.

To all of you that say drilling will do nothing now, what do you tell your ten-year child that doesn't want to do their homework. "Do you homework, get good grades, go to college, and get a good apying job" But the ten year old says - "so doing my homework today does me no good until 12 years from now?"

Oil companies have said that there are dry holes and problems with lawsuits for federal permits on the 68m acres they now have. What congress took was a vote on, was to take leases away from companies who aren't drilling on now.
Dems are saying that they have NO PROBLEM (oh really ha) with drilling here, but would just like for them to drill this land first. If there's no problem with drilling, then why not open up what is a more of a sure fire bigger profit for oil companies where they are wanting to drill. This is how that vote came down>The vote was 244 to 173, more than 30 votes less than required. Rejecting the measure were 162 Republicans and 11 Democrats; 218 Democrats and 26 Republicans supported it. ***Democrats used rules requiring a two-thirds majority for approval to deny Republicans an opportunity to offer their own proposal to open restricted coastal areas to oil rigs.

Opponents said the legislation, which also called on the Interior Department to accelerate leasing in an area of Alaska specifically set aside for drilling, could diminish domestic exploration since it would bar oil companies from obtaining new leases if they were not actively exploring current holdings. Republicans said companies might be reluctant to bid on new sites they could then lose if they were seen as not moving fast enough.

The White House expressed a similar view in issuing a veto threat against the bill. “By blocking some firms from competing for new leases, this legislation would further increase gasoline prices that already exceed $4 per gallon and result in unintended consequences due to litigation,” the White House said.

as per Terry: "Scotty usually goes away a loser from logical arguements - he throws a little hissy fit and comes back tomorrow."

I'm back but want to make one thing perfectly clear, the loser is not me, the losers are those who want to pronlong our dependance on oil rather than jump starting ahead into the future with alternative energy sources like so many other countries in the world. America used to be first and foremost in the land of exploration and imagination. Now it has become a country of whinning gas guzzlling over weight couch potatos with no enthusiasm to become number one, again, in tecnology and innovation. We are behind in alternatvie energy sources and the republicans want us to stay that wasy. Submissive and dumb.

Scotty - I thought you said good-bye? You have a point about the country - why do you think that is? Why do you think America is not first in "exploration and imagination"? Could it be our sub-par public school system that can't teach math and science? The school system that is wholly owned subsidiary of the democratic party. The democratic party that does nothing but promises handoutsthat tturn Americans into overweight couch potatoes waiting for their next gov't handout - wait here it comes - a bailout for those people that went over their heads in buying a house.

I believe the Republicans want more nuclear plants. The dems want windmills - let's start with the plant off Teddy the Drunks plantation in Massachuttets.

Keep your public relations job and let those who know how to critically think do their job.