Fri 6-27-08

Sassenach wrote:

Quote :

Rahall to Big Oil: Use It or Lose It
Washington, D.C. - In an effort to compel oil and gas companies to produce on the 68 million acres of federal lands, both onshore and offshore, that are leased but sitting idle, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) today introduced legislation that gives Big Oil one option - either "use it or lose it."

"Big Oil, as many Americans already suspect, are perfectly fine with high gasoline prices at the pump while they hold back domestic production on federal leases and enjoy world record profits. I am calling them on the carpet. I am calling their bluff. We are not going to continue to allow them to speculate and profiteer with public resources to the detriment of the American people," Rahall said.

The Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008 (H.R. 6251) is a direct response to the facts outlined in the recent House Natural Resources Committee Majority Staff report, "The Truth About America's Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits", that illustrate how energy companies are not using the federal lands and waters that are already open to drilling. The legislation is co-sponsored by Reps. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Ed Markey (D-MA), and John Yarmuth (D-KY).

The 68 million acres of leased but inactive federal land have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. This would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75 percent. It would also cut U.S. oil imports by more than one-third, reducing America's dependency on foreign oil.

The Rahall bill would force oil and gas companies to either produce or give up federal onshore and offshore leases they are stockpiling by barring the companies from obtaining any more leases unless they can demonstrate that they are producing oil and gas, or are diligently developing the leases they already hold, during the initial term of the leases.

Coal companies, which are issued leases for 20-year terms, are required, as a result of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 to show that they are diligently developing their leases during the initial lease term. The law was enacted in an effort to end rampant speculation on federal coal as a result of the energy crises of the 1970's.

Oil and gas companies, however, are not required to demonstrate diligent development. Because of this, oil and gas companies have been allowed to stockpile leases in a non-producing status, while leaving millions of acres of leased land untouched. The Rahall legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to define what constitutes diligent development for oil and gas leases.

Companies could avoid this new lease prohibition by relinquishing their non-producing leases, thus creating an opportunity for another company to explore for and perhaps produce oil and gas.

"As long as oil companies hold oil hostage, they will continue to get away with charging high prices and demanding a greater share of the public's land. This bill forces their hand by compelling them to produce or hand the over their idle leases for someone who will," Rahall said.

I know it's soothing to blame the oil companies.....especially if they are deliberately withholding oil. There are 5 big oil companies in the US. If this were true.....that they were withholding oil by not drilling, all in unison, then they would fall under the antitrust laws of the US......and basically be busted up. This is not happening.....even with a democratic congress who seems to loathe them....so you have to conclude, that either the congress is in bed with the oil companies.....or the premise is false that they are withholding oil by not using their leases properly.

baldar77 wrote:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51837

First, this link is from 2006 so I tried searching info on Jack Field to see what the current production is. I found references that it was finally tapped and estimates that development might occur from 2009 to 2013. And then this

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/9/8/11274/83638

Quote :

Under most forecasted scenarios, production from the LTGOM will likely only offset declines in US production that will have occurred by then.

So this is supposedly an abundance of oil in an area already accessable that was found over 2 years ago and it has not been developed for production as yet...if I've got that right.

I don't find this a compelling reason to allow access to areas currently off limits.

baldar77 wrote:

More [url=http://www.chinamining.org/News/2008-05-27/1211874463d14174.html

http://www.chinamining.org/News/2008-05-27/1211874463d14174.html[/quote[/url]]

I'm not sure about the relevance of this link. I thought the current debate was about more shallow water drilling - I don't even know what our (the US's) claim is on the central waters of the Gulf, though Shell is named as a partner.

So this is also obviously an area that the oil companies already have access to...but is it even in production?

sass we can argue this till doomsday, but the sad fact is, unless we get more oil out of the ground, our lifestyles, and our children's, will dramatically decline. I have yet to see a car run on wind power, geothermal power, tidal power, hydro power or coal power. Electric and solar is in it's infancy, and is far down the road. Fuel cells are in the same boat. I'll bet a dollar to a donut that we can drill our way out of this scenario faster than we can engineer our way out of it.

baldar77 wrote:

another one [url=http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16972

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16972[/quote[/url]]

I have said I thought having China fund drilling off the coast of Cuba is going to be trouble with a capital T. But I don't see us setting up oil rigs around the Florida shoreline as the solution to this problem.

As for the statement in bold...

Quote :

Permission to drill in the refuge, which experts are certain will not present any environmental hazard, has failed by just two votes in the Senate.

yeah, right. Experts like the former Exxon executive Bush appointed as the climate control expert?

Sassenach wrote:

baldar77 wrote:

More [url=http://www.chinamining.org/News/2008-05-27/1211874463d14174.html

http://www.chinamining.org/News/2008-05-27/1211874463d14174.html[/quote[/url]]

I'm not sure about the relevance of this link. I thought the current debate was about more shallow water drilling - I don't even know what our (the US's) claim is on the central waters of the Gulf, though Shell is named as a partner.

So this is also obviously an area that the oil companies already have access to...but is it even in production?

The countries around the caribbean are drilling and exploring and extracting oil. We aren't. That was the point of the story. If they develop it, and we don't, it puts us in a very tenable position later down the road. In other words......everyone gets to drill and explore offshore except us.

Sassenach wrote:

baldar77 wrote:

another one [url=http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16972

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16972[/quote[/url]]

I have said I thought having China fund drilling off the coast of Cuba is going to be trouble with a capital T. But I don't see us setting up oil rigs around the Florida shoreline as the solution to this problem.

As for the statement in bold...

Quote :

Permission to drill in the refuge, which experts are certain will not present any environmental hazard, has failed by just two votes in the Senate.

yeah, right. Experts like the former Exxon executive Bush appointed as the climate control expert?

Do you really care about the "pristine beauty" of ANWAR? And have you ever smelled a caribou up close? AWFUL!!! Anyway....it's 1/10 of 1 percent that they want to drill. Don't let your hatred of Bush cloud your objectivity.

baldar77 wrote:

sass we can argue this till doomsday, but the sad fact is, unless we get more oil out of the ground, our lifestyles, and our children's, will dramatically decline. I have yet to see a car run on wind power, geothermal power, tidal power, hydro power or coal power. Electric and solar is in it's infancy, and is far down the road. Fuel cells are in the same boat. I'll bet a dollar to a donut that we can drill our way out of this scenario faster than we can engineer our way out of it.

That is just it...if recent history (since the Carter adminstration at least) is any indicator there will not be any new innovation as long as Big Oil forces us to stay an oil based economy, and the way I see it, that is exactly what Big Oil has and will continue to do, as long as we let them.

People are already driving less and investing in more gas efficient vehicles. We pay much less than other countries for gas but even the increase we have seen has spurred not only this debate but real change in choices and behavior. That's actually a good thing, imho.

I guess I just believe we can engineer our way out of it IF Big Oil and Big Government will only allow it. A little more oil is only postponing the inevitable.

GOOD GRIEF.........we have a hell of a t-storm heading right towards us. check out weather and look at this thing..........in louisville ky.

baldar77 wrote:

If they develop it, and we don't, it puts us in a very tenable position later down the road. In other words......everyone gets to drill and explore offshore except us.

"Everyone except us" - that's overstating it a little, don't you think. We aren't and haven't eliminated drilling - we (Bush 41 wasn't it) have limited it.

Man.....if we could capture the energy from lightning strikes......wouldn't THAT be sumptin'!

baldar77 wrote:

GOOD GRIEF.........we have a hell of a t-storm heading right towards us. check out weather and look at this thing..........in louisville ky.

I hope it heads here. We have heard thunder for a few hours but still not a drop. They are already talking tighter water restrictions. We haven't been able to use our sprinkler system in 2 years - and my yard looks it.

Sassenach wrote:

baldar77 wrote:

If they develop it, and we don't, it puts us in a very tenable position later down the road. In other words......everyone gets to drill and explore offshore except us.

"Everyone except us" - that's overstating it a little, don't you think. We aren't and haven't eliminated drilling - we (Bush 41 wasn't it) have limited it.

Yep.....we've limited it, just like an executioner limits his victim with a garrot by slowly strangling him.....he LIMITS the air he gets.....till he suffocates slowly to death.

Your weather is usually a day behind ours....unless it fizzles out.

Louisiana Gov. Jindal Authorizes Chemical Castration Of Sex Offenders

Next best thing to killing 'em I guess.

uhuh.....I'm not even getting into that with you. You'll wind up hating me.

Hey, talk about innovation

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008159.html

It's cute!



Because it will have both an electric and a gasoline motor on board, the Volt will be a hybrid. But it will be like no hybrid on the road today. Existing hybrids are gasoline-powered cars, with an electric assist to improve the gas mileage. The Volt will be an electric-powered car, with a gasoline assist to increase the battery's range.

The car will get something like 50 miles to the gallon when it uses its engine to recharge the batteries, but this stat has led to some confusion by obscuring the more important point: for most drivers, the engine will rarely kick in. The car has a range of 40 miles on batteries alone, which can be recharged from a standard outlet. Typical commuters could go their whole lives without ever filling the tank

baldar77 wrote:

uhuh.....I'm not even getting into that with you. You'll wind up hating me.

Maybe not. I'm all for capital punishment. Hang 'em high!

I'm even okay with killing child rapists. I don't believe you can rehabilitate them. With the exception of cases of statutory rape where like a 19 yo has consensual sex with a 16 yo. But you know what I'm saying.

They also have a fully electric PORSCHE. Also, Ferrari is developing one that so far has gone about 150 mph. Of course, it's about a quarter mil......I need one for about 20 grand.....one where I can pull into krispy Kreme, get a donut, and recharge the battery in 5 minutes.

Sassenach wrote:

baldar77 wrote:

uhuh.....I'm not even getting into that with you. You'll wind up hating me.

Maybe not. I'm all for capital punishment. Hang 'em high!

I'm even okay with killing child rapists. I don't believe you can rehabilitate them. With the exception of cases of statutory rape where like a 19 yo has consensual sex with a 16 yo. But you know what I'm saying.

I agree....but I think it should be publicly televised......maybe even pay per view!

I would also be ok with turning them over to the family......and let them do what they want with 'em.

Honda has the Clarity, a hydrogen fed fuel cell car, too, the only emission is water vapor.

They're only gonna make 150 over THREE YEARS??????? WTF.....how's that gonna get us off oil?

And why can't Ford or GM make something.
whys it always a car co that's from a country we've defeated in a past war?