Democrats for domestic drilling: Hoyer

Looks to me like Hoyer is just playing games, which basically is what the Democrats have been doing with our energy for decades, and particularly since then Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said in 2000 when gas prices first spiked, "we got caught with our pants down." Apparently the Democrats like pulling the pants down on the American public.

Stuffed suit McCain has already admitted that his off shore drilling proposal is nothing more than a sham 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!

"ONE AMERICAN SPEAKS"

DUE TO THE LOSS OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT!
I WOULD RATHER NOT COMMENT EITHER WAY AS IT MAY INCRIMINATE ME BECAUSE BY REMOVING ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OUT OF THE PROCESS, AND INSERTING A PASS ON CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TODAY! IT MAY BE BEST JUST TO KEEP MY COMMENTS TO MYSELF UNTIL I CANCEL MY LONG DISTANCE SERVICE WITH AT&T!

Democrats are not for drillling-

Democrats are for posturing and politicizing this economy killing energy crisis.

Lets assume that the only thing the oil corps are after is profit..."obsene profits" if you listen to many on the left.

So why do you suppose that they do not drill in land that is open for drilling now- especially when oil is trading at record profits?

you would think that a corp that is profit motivated would be falling all over themselve to get to the crude oil that is being sold at all time high prices- wouldn't you?

Is it possible that the oil corps just don't want to make any more money?

Or

Could it be more likely that there may not be any more oil that can be produced in these areas at a profit?

And BTW- requiring the oil corps to drill and deliver oil to the market at a loss is not an option- unless your Joseph Stalin

The democrats are indeed playing games with America's energy future - and voters need to grow up and understand that the big issue is the energy cost as it relates to manufacturing. The first wave of manufacturing realignment we lost out due to labor costs now the new wave of manufacturing migration is being fueled by massive energy cost differentials between USA and other industrial centers such as China where they are building hundreds of new coal fired electric power plants. Fractions of the costs we pay for energy.

So while you listen to some ignoramous jammer about her high cost of driving to the Mall to go shop - or to the beach to tan - realize that the big cost is a further erosion of the USA economic position.

And remember it is the democrats that just say no to everything that we in the USA need to do.

Who is this ignorant and flat out wrong John E person?

You are just wrong on everything, from the war in Iraq I use to see you rant about and now to Anwar and the oil available off shore. You are what is wrong with so many liberal Americans, ignorant and arrogantly so.

Like an old broken clock on the wall, even Steny is right twice a day.

McCain is already flip-flopping on his call for offshore drilling and a gas tax holiday.

McCain believes drilling is part of a short-term solution. He also believes drilling offers no real short-term solutions. McCain believes a gas-tax holiday will produce big savings for consumers. And he also believes it will provide no savings for consumers

http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/06/24/mccain-psychological-drilling/

You are just wrong on everything, from the war in Iraq I use to see you rant about and now to Anwar and the oil available off shore. You are what is wrong with so many liberal Americans, ignorant and arrogantly so.

Posted by: cj mccoy | July 9, 2008 4:28 PM

Prove it, clown...

So while you listen to some ignoramous jammer about her high cost of driving to the Mall to go shop - or to the beach to tan - realize that the big cost is a further erosion of the USA economic position.
And remember it is the democrats that just say no to everything that we in the USA need to do.

Posted by: Can't fix stupid | July 9, 2008 4:20 PM

It was the Republicans who got us in this mess in the first place, you gave tax cuts to the rich, you started wars and you deficit spendt us into oblivion..

Goodbye GOoPer's, your days are numbered and you know it!

Heratburn-

Are you saying that corporations have a motivation OTHER than profit? Corporations exist to maximize profits, nothing more. They don't exist to make the lives of the American people better, or to ensure a stable energy supply, they exist to make money.

Their reluctance to drill in the ares avaliable does not imply that those area would not be profitable. It only implies that they can get greater profits drilling someplace else. As a result they push to be allowed to drill in those areas, which happen to be public lands. The American people, through their representatives in the government, need to decide whether the loss of those public lands for other uses, and the potential for the permanent damage to those lands from pollution, are worth the payback they would get from the corporations for their use.

We are giving the Corporation access to resources of great value to them, and we are also creating a heightened risk of damage to the properties in question. It is far from an unreasonable request that the Oil corporations not only justify why the areas they already have access to are not in use, but that they provide a payback to the nation in line with the value of the asset they are requesting to be provided access to.

Just as there is no reason for the Corporations to pump oil at a loss, there is no reason for the American people to to give up a valuable asset, without an appropriate level of benefit in return.

"Democrats are not against drilling..." ~ Steny Hoyer, democrat

In order that we may be clear - then, are you FOR drilling???

"What we are for is urging and making sure the oil companies, who are getting the highest price for the product in history - don't need any additional tax incentives to do so - ought to be spending their money on exploring and bringing more product to market." - Steny Hoyer, democrat

Capital Expenditures for the major oil companies - ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell are approximately 50% of their net income. Maybe not enough to suit some, but considerably more than pool hall money by any normal standard of measurement.

The democrat mantra for most of the year has been that more oil is not needed anyway, AND wouldn't do any good even if it could be produced, so why do they need to spend anything.

"Recently the president said we're addicted to oil," Hoyer (democrat) said.

The president, that would be George Bush, made this statement in his State of The Union address in January. ALL of the democrat members of the House and the Senate were there, looking very glum, as if someone had just busted open their last special can of beans. One purpose of the State of The Union is to bring to the attention of the Congress, issues that need to be addressed. George Washington decided not to be a King, and we haven't had one since, Congressman Hoyer.

"His solution is, let's get more oil. ~ Steny Hoyer, democrat

And when will you be offering up your solution. BTW, hearings, investigations, additional taxes, depleting the Strategic Reserve, are not much of a solution. Thank you.

The Big Oil companies that are in the back pocket of Bush, McCain and the Republican Party are using less than a quarter of the leases for drilling currently. At the same time, they're making massive windfall profits. This is a situation where the oil companies are profiting by manipulating the supply. The right thing to do is to regulate the market to force the existing supply to be made available. Not reward the companies (like Bush and McCain want to do) that created the situation with additional leases for them to ignore.

And when will you be offering up your solution. BTW, hearings, investigations, additional taxes, depleting the Strategic Reserve, are not much of a solution. Thank you.

Posted by: Django Scott - Houston Tx | July 9, 2008 5:11 PM

Gee, just what we needed, more delusional "advice" from another idiot from Texas.

Posted by: Pepsid | July 9, 2008 5:04 PM

Agreed- my questions were rhetorical and to make apoint- oil companies- or any company for that matter- are almost exclusively profit based.

Your implication that oil companies should fullly use all of the lands they have been granted does not make sense-

Using your assertion...
"Just as there is no reason for the Corporations to pump oil at a loss, there is no reason for the American people to to give up a valuable asset, without an appropriate level of benefit in return."...

basically supports the argument that ONLY areas that have easy access to large amounts of oil should be available for drilling-- since the most efficient use of the (high value) land for oil production is to drill where only where there is a high liklihood for success -and would have the best return on investment...

It only stands to reason that the undeveloped areas that are available for oil production do not meet this (your) criteria.

The right thing to do is to regulate the market to force the existing supply to be made available.

Posted by: GOP oil spill | July 9, 2008 5:19 PM

You contradict yourself- how do you "regulate" the market to force supply to be "made" available?

Short of oil supply fairies to magically increase the oil supply, what would you propose to FORCE supply to be made available?

So back to reality..
You have two choices when you are talking about marketing a commodity that is a finite resource..

Increase Supply
or
Decrease demand

heartburn-

Again, you repeat the argument ONLY from the oil company perspective. You only place value on the land as oil companies value it. You discount the other values and potential risks to the american public. You want it to be a one way negiotiation. The oil companies ask, and everyone else is to immediately agree.

However that is not the reality of the situation. There are differing values on the land. To state that it must be a good deal because the oil companies are asking for it is to be intentionally blind to one half of the business deal involved . If the oil companies tomorrow decide that it would be really profitable to drill for oil in the Grand Canyon, certainly that would not be reason enough to immediately give them leases, by any rational way of looking at the deal.
If someone approaches you and offers to buy your house, are you going to sell it solely because it is a good financial deal for them? No, you're going to analyze whether it is also a good finacial deal for you, and you're going to take into account less tangible factors, such as disrupting your children's education, your emotional attachment to your house, how much you like your neighborhood, etc. You might also take into account what selling your house to the buyer would do to the community. If say the buyer intended to tear down the house and put a toxic waste dump there, it's probably going to make you less likely to sell then if it was going to a nice young family for the same price.

You're letting these corporations stampede you into making a deal for their benefit, while only looking at the benefits to them. There are two sides to this deal, and you are one of the sides. You're selling, but you're only looking at what's good for the buyer.

Heartburn, liberals do not understand simple economics. They do not understand supply and demand. You have Nancy Pelosi say open up the reserves to bring down the price, which it will not. But she is against more drilling, which will bring down the price. Hoyer is just playing games. Durbin too, who today said he would take a fresh look at more drilling. They are just postering. The biggest threat to this country is the Left and the Democrats it has bought and paid for.

Prove it, clown...
Posted by: John E | July 9, 2008 4:57 PM

You do a fine job of proving it right here... you seem dumb as a sack a nails. Are you from New Jersey?

Who is this ignorant and flat out wrong John E person?
Posted by: cj mccoy | July 9, 2008 4:28 PM

cj: Little Johnny Everdumb is a paid DNC political hack, he sings for a desperate party , he also said he was in Iraq with another liar dale peters, he actually hides under his moms' dress in her basement.Do like everybody else does ignore the MORON.

Posted by: Django Scott - Houston Tx | July 9, 2008 5:11 PM

Gee, just what we needed, more delusional "advice" from another idiot from Texas.

Posted by: John E | July 9, 2008 5:44 PM

John E,

A little review is in order.
1. Drilling - For or Against. It's just a straight forward question.
2. The Facts - Capital Expenditures are 50 % of the oil companies Net Income.
3. I seemed to have repeated the democrats energy slogan: 'No Energy in 08'
4. President George Bush's 2008 State of The Union address - it was short on "hope" and "change", but was otherwise very good. Sorry that you missed it.
5. There have been 43 presidential administrations ( but only 42 presidents, kind of neat, yeah). There have been NO Kings, although FDR did seemed to have tried. Just more of those dat-gum FACTS.
6. Did that evil Dick Cheney steal YOUR can of beans too.
7. That is so sad.
8. Just wondering what incredible plans Congressman Hoyer would have. Lots of C)2, never any answers. Didn't mean no harm.
9. John E, don't know that you noticed or not, but there are a couple of fellows that are raining down FIRE on YOU. Yeah they are.

I love this here Swamp.
What a great country this is or is it. I think it is.
Hotter than the democrats final resting place at times, but I love this state.

Regards,

You do a fine job of proving it right here... you seem dumb as a sack a nails. Are you from New Jersey?

Posted by: cj mccoy | July 9, 2008 8:01 PM

"cj", that's sounds Texan. You must be another one of those brain donor Texans like your goofball Republican President, right slick?

Heartburn, liberals do not understand simple economics. They do not understand supply and demand. You have Nancy Pelosi say open up the reserves to bring down the price, which it will not. But she is against more drilling, which will bring down the price. Hoyer is just playing games. Durbin too, who today said he would take a fresh look at more drilling. They are just postering. The biggest threat to this country is the Left and the Democrats it has bought and paid for.

Posted by: Green Trees | July 9, 2008 6:50 PM

The Dems understand that the last seven years of the Republicans warmongering, defecit spending and giving tax cuts to their super rich friends has screwed our country up royally and so does the rest of the country, you nut.

Like I said earlier, Green Jeans, enjoy your time in the miniority because come 2009 you Neonut Repubs are going to be reduced to 4th Party gadflies....

Posted by: Don B. | July 9, 2008 8:09 PM

Sounds like you're off your meds again, Donny boy...

It's not that the oil companies can't make a profit in the current leases, it's that it will take several years of expensive drilling before those profits to show up. And the executives are rewarded for the money they bring in, not the money they spend.

Securing oil leases on the other hand is booked as securing an asset. So when an oil exec secures an oil lease, he is rewarded. When an oil exec begins to drill a well, he makes an expense without immediate profit -- he is NOT rewarded.

Corporations don't exist as much to make a profit as they do to provide legal protection (corporate veil) to those who make money off the corporation. The execs will do what is good for the execs, regardless of what is good for the United States or what is good for the corporation (see Wall Street/Banks for a case study in rewarding executives at the expense of the company).

Posted by: Django Scott - Houston Tx | July 9, 2008 5:11 PM

Gee, just what we needed, more delusional "advice" from another idiot from Texas.

Posted by: John E | July 9, 2008 5:44 PM

John E,

A little review is in order.
1. Drilling - For or Against. It's just a straight forward question.
2. The Facts - Capital Expenditures are 50 % of the oil companies Net Income.
3. I seemed to have repeated the democrats energy slogan: 'No Energy in 08'
4. President George Bush's 2008 State of The Union address - it was short on "hope" and "change", but was otherwise very good. Sorry that you missed it.
5. There have been 43 presidential administrations ( but only 42 presidents, kind of neat, yeah). There have been NO Kings, although FDR did seemed to have tried. Just more of those dat-gum FACTS.
6. Did that evil Dick Cheney steal YOUR can of beans too.
7. That is so sad.
8. Just wondering what incredible plans Congressman Hoyer would have. Lots of CO2, never any answers. Didn't mean no harm.
9. John E, don't know that you noticed or not, but there are a couple of fellows that are raining down FIRE on YOU. Yeah they are.

I love this here Swamp.
What a great country this is or is it. I think it is.
Hotter than the democrats final resting place at times, but I love this state.

Regards,

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 10:22 PM

My apologies, Swamp denizens. One of Jimmy Carter's cockroach cousins apparently was tinkering with the software on my HP while I was playing ' Hotel California' for a Pretty Latina. Django NEVER goes Anonymous. Unlike the democrats, I have NO need to hide who I am, or even where I play and live.

I love this unseasonably hot state. What a great country this truly must be.

Why does the Swamp allow this whackjob John E to even post? All he does is call people names, use stupid slogans that seemingly are lifted from other websites, never presents a valid arguing/discussion point, and basically rants like a little kindergartner who didn't get his diaper changed yet. The man is an embarrassment to the Left and frankly embarrasses the Tribune with his childish gibberish.

Posted by: Pepsid | July 9, 2008 6:45 PM

Your deflecting the issue- we are only talking about federal land that has been leased specifically for oil production.. your analogies are off point.

The core of the argument is whether the oil companies have used the land that they have leases effectively. My contention is that given the huge windfalls available for the incremental volume to be realized- there has to be oil in these unproduced areas. It only stands to reason that the experts ( oil companies) don;t belive there is any more oil there that is worth the effort ( profitable) to go after.

It's the energy stupid!