Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course, there will NEVER be any expansion of energy exploration on federal land with Obama in office.
How much oil has been discovered and tapped since Obama has been in office? Have you been reading the papers? By the end of Obama's 2nd term, the US will be outproducing every other country in the world oil-wise. That's not enough for you?
How much oil has been discovered and tapped since Obama has been in office? Have you been reading the papers? By the end of Obama's 2nd term, the US will be outproducing every other country in the world oil-wise. That's not enough for you?
Unfortunately for you and your theory, the vast majority of the oil and natural gas you speak of has been tapped from private land using private resources.
Unfortunately for you and your theory, the vast majority of the oil you speak of has been tapped from private land using private resources.
So, you were saying?
Ok, so why worry about federal lands then? We could actually, SAVE that oil for the future. I know that's a crazy concept for some.
Cars are getting more efficient, mass transit is growing (at least in my city it is) and hopefully oil demand will continue to decline in this country. That would be the best case scenario, that we actually don't need the oil off those federal lands.
Ok, so why worry about federal lands then? We could actually, SAVE that oil for the future. I know that's a crazy concept for some.
Cars are getting more efficient, mass transit is growing (at least in my city it is) and hopefully oil demand will continue to decline in this country. That would be the best case scenario, that we actually don't need the oil off those federal lands.
I don't disagree. But O supporter's should stop making any reference to the Administration when it comes to our rising oil and gas output. He has had very little to do with it. The private industry is by far leading the way.
I don't disagree. But O supporter's should stop making any reference to the Administration when it comes to our rising oil and gas output. He has had very little to do with it. The private industry is by far leading the way.
But, he's not hindering them either. I think he's pretty much handling the oil industry like any President would. Private industry has demonstrated that the oil on those federal lands can be held in reserve. Just like going to the middle east and pumping their oil for the last 50 years knowing full well we had trillions of barrels of untapped oil in reserve right here.
Obama has always gotten a bad rap from Republicans when it comes to energy. Like that pipeline they wanted to build from Canada to Texas? I'm not sure about that, but I remember reading that the pipeline operator wanted the Government to waive many of the environmental studies that go hand in hand with pipeline construction. Why would they do that? Obama simply said no to that, but then became "anti-oil" in people's eyes.
Unfortunately for you and your theory, the vast majority of the oil and natural gas you speak of has been tapped from private land using private resources.
So, you were saying?
And the private landowners are getting screwed while gas and oil companies are reaping the rewards. The idea of private citizens getting rich seems taboo.
Quote:
“From Pennsylvania to North Dakota, a powerful argument for allowing extensive new drilling has been that royalty payments would enrich local landowners, lifting the economies of heartland and rural America,” Abrahm Lustgarten wrote for the investigative news website. “But manipulation of costs and other data by oil companies is keeping billions of dollars in royalties out of the hands of private and government landholders.”
The industry gets away with underpaying property owners by using “complex accounting and business arrangements” that allow it to keep more of the profits.
And the private landowners are getting screwed while gas and oil companies are reaping the rewards. The idea of private citizens getting rich seems taboo.
I guess it depends on the individual landowners' version of what is "rich?" Either he/she can sleep well at night knowing that he/she is sitting on an untapped natural resource, or he/she can sleep well at night knowing that he/she is receiving a royalty check for allowing it to be tapped. I'm quite positive that the individual landowner's in question weighed the cost/benefit of mineral rights and each of them signed (or didn't sign) based on what they felt was right and just.
Why should we care what others have signed off on concerning their own property and whether it was right or wrong? If they didn't like the figures presented to them, then they shouldn't have signed on the dotted line.
The strategic goal is to encircle Iran, and it's pretty much complete. Syria is one of the final steps, as was discussed by General Clark years ago in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq ... all of the subsequent targets had already been decided on back then ... Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria, to go along with already established military bases in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UA, etc.
But, maybe it's just a coincidence?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
