Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Unfortunately, this was a 2004 story. It STILL is tied up in court by the leftist environmental crowd.


    http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2...-05-07-091.asp
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member LibraryLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    3,748
    Maybe not:

    July 20, 2008
    Going for Liberty

    BP board gives green light for field development; rig being constructed


    Alan Bailey

    Petroleum News

    After years of debate about how and whether to develop the Liberty oil field in the Beaufort Sea, five or so miles offshore Alaska’s North Slope, the BP board has finally given the go ahead to bring the field into production. In a July 14 announcement the company said that it is proceeding with full development of the field, using ultra extended reach drilling from the Endicott field satellite drilling island.

    “Liberty is an important project for the nation, for Alaska and for BP. It demonstrates that new sources of domestic energy can be developed and produced responsibly,” said Robert Malone, chairman of BP America.

    “We’re moving forward with the Liberty project and that’s really exciting for us,” Doug Suttles, president of BP Exploration (Alaska) told a July 14 Anchorage press conference. “… Our ultimate investment in Liberty will probably approach $1.5 billion.”

    Suttles characterized the Liberty development as an example of “exploring through technology,” in which investment is put at risk to use new technologies to develop known oil pools.

    “We’ll be doing a number of things that have never been done before in our industry,” Suttles said. “We’ll be drilling the longest wells ever drilled.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,889
    Pelosi blocks vote on Bush request to lift ban on offshore oil drilling
    snip


    Faced with rapidly increasing gasoline prices, 73 percent of Americans now favor offshore drilling .

    "In the House, the power rests in the speaker, the power of recognition, of setting the agenda. ... Very different rules," Pelosi said.

    Acknowledging her ability to influence decision-making, Pelosi said in the interview that she gets to operate differently than her Senate counterpart, Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Reid must reach out to Republicans to muster 60 votes – enough to stop a filibuster – to get anything done.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has called President Bush "a total failure" and said Congress has been forced to "to sweep up after his mess over and over and over again," said she has no plans to schedule a vote to lift an offshore drilling ban. Public support for a resumption of exploration off the coast has been growing since the advent of $4-a-gallon gasoline.


    WASHINGTON – A plan to lift the ban on coastal drilling is stalled on Capitol Hill, for one simple reason: A Californian who opposes President Bush's proposal is calling the shots in the House of Representatives.

    Despite growing public support for ending the ban, even in California, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco said she won't allow the immediate vote the president wants.

    "I have no plans to do so," Pelosi said last week.

    snip

    In this case, Pelosi is going against a rising tide of public opinion. Faced with rapidly increasing gasoline prices, 73 percent of Americans now favor offshore drilling .

    Support is even growing in California A new Field Poll survey last week found that 51 percent still favor the ban, down slightly from the 56 percent who backed it in 2005.

    snip
    snip
    snip

    "It's absolutely critical to have a Californian who understands that new drilling has no place off our coasts in a position of power in the House of Representatives," she said.
    snip

    snip
    The president's plan has drawn opposition from other top leaders in California: Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer, who heads the Senate Environment Committee, and Dianne Feinstein.
    snip

    But Pelosi may be hard-pressed to stand firm against lifting the moratorium. She's under heavy pressure from House Republicans, who have been unrelenting in their political attacks against the speaker, blaming her for the record gasoline prices.

    On Friday, House Republican leader John Boehner called on Pelosi to stop "ignoring the calls of the American people."

    He said he would lead a delegation of 10 House Republicans —- including Bakersfield Republican Kevin McCarthy —- on an "American energy tour" to Colorado and Alaska this weekend to put a spotlight on the refusal of Democratic leaders to allow drilling in Alaska and elsewhere.

    The congressional ban on offshore drilling has been in effect since 1981, but Congress must renew it each year. The issue could come to a head again in September, when Pelosi could make it tougher for opponents to kill the ban by including it in an omnibus spending bill that may be required to keep the government operating.


    http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1095193.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Betwixt Member Bubba Dawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    In my own private Alamo on The Mountain in Georgia
    Posts
    13,556
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitutionally Speaking View Post
    Brrrr fort.:D

    :D:D:D Nice.
    Hey careful man! There's a beverage here!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,889
    Debunking the latest liberal myth

    UPDATE: It should be noted that when an oil company leases federal land, it is not necessarily granted the right to drill or produce on that land. Glen Beck provides a case in point:

    Destin Dome is a formation in the Gulf of Mexico. It's about 25 miles off of Pensacola, Florida. Experts say it has enough natural gas to supply a million homes for 30 years, this one place. Well, under Reagan, 1981, Chevron leased this dome. It's federal land. They have the lease for the dome, 1981. They drilled three wells to explore, one in 1987, one in '89 and one in '95. They found an estimated 2.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. So story ends. We're pumping the gas, right? No, no. The lease only gave Chevron the right to drill, not to produce the gas. They could drill. They just can't take it out. The lease that they had on the Destin Dome, they could find it but they had to go back and get federal approval to actually take it out.

    In 1996 Chevron submitted a developed plan to the state and interior department.

    They proposed drilling 21 different wells. They said as few as 12 but maybe as much as 21. Florida officials took their time dragging their feet deciding whether or not to grant Florida's -- grant Chevron's request. Eventually two years went by and they were denied. Chevron appealed the decision to the department of congress. Congress sat on the appeal. Eventually in 2000 -- remember this started in 1981 -- in 2000 the commerce department, doing nothing on the appeal, Chevron said, okay, what are you guys doing to us. They sued the federal government in order to compel it to act. While the lawsuit was pending, Bush met with his brother Jeb, who was the Florida governor if you remember right. They agreed to have the federal government buy back the leases for $115 million and place a moratorium on the drilling in this dome until 2011.

    Now, why did that happen? There are over 140 actual leased tracks right now that these oil companies have that they cannot drill in. They have the leases. They can drill in some of them but they can't produce. In others they can look but they can't drill. So when people come out and say, these oil companies already have these giant tracts of land, ask yourself and ask them, do they have the right to drill and produce on those lands.

    By the way, what did Chevron do?
    It took the refund from the government, it took the $115 million. Instead of the 2.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough, for 30 years of natural gas, they took the $115 million refund and they invested it in a project in Angola where they're currently producing liquefied natural gas that has to be shipped from Angola to us.

    Hat tip: RightNation.US's Mollywalk.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../posts#comment
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,889
    Debunking the latest liberal myth

    "PolarBear Markey is a well known low rent Liberal MassHole !"


    Liberal myths often quickly become talking points for the Democrats, and even as conservatives punch holes in them, the Left simply patches them up and floats them again.

    Such is the case with the latest liberal myth/Democrat talking point - that oil companies aren't drilling on the lands they currently hold: "Big Oil is more interested in pumping up prices and pumping up their own profits rather than pumping more oil," said Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass), who has co-sponsored a bill to charge oil companies a fee for land they hold that's not producing oil.

    "We should not even begin...

    http://www.redstate.com/diaries/josh...-liberal-myth/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,963
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    Debunking the latest liberal myth

    UPDATE: It should be noted that when an oil company leases federal land, it is not necessarily granted the right to drill or produce on that land. Glen Beck provides a case in point:

    . They could drill. They just can't take it out. The lease that they had on the Destin Dome, they could find it but they had to go back and get federal approval to actually take it out.



    Now, why did that happen? There are over 140 actual leased tracks right now that these oil companies have that they cannot drill in. They have the leases. They can drill in some of them but they can't produce. In others they can look but they can't drill. So when people come out and say, these oil companies already have these giant tracts of land, ask yourself and ask them, do they have the right to drill and produce on those lands.

    By the way, what did Chevron do?
    It took the refund from the government, it took the $115 million. Instead of the 2.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough, for 30 years of natural gas, they took the $115 million refund and they invested it in a project in Angola where they're currently producing liquefied natural gas that has to be shipped from Angola to us.

    Hat tip: RightNation.US's Mollywalk.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../posts#comment
    One thing that the liberals and the ignorant overlook or certainly do not want the public to understand about these leases is that, the oil companies or who ever is leasing pays a fee each and every year. My Uncle was in the business of leasing land in AK for oil exploration. My mom leased over a thousand acres; Exxon did not like private small companies so they went to Congress, got them to double the fees per acre and increase the land tracts that could be purchased by small investors. My Uncle took Exxon to court and lost. Thereby closing his business down.

    The Federal government gets tremendous amounts of money from these oil lease; whether they drill or not is immaterial. They have to pay up each and every year. When the morons in DC talk about tax breaks for the oil companies, they are talking about Corporation taxes. Congress increased the Corporation taxes from 32% (which happens to be the standard rate on every Corp. in the US) to 35%. The World Court told the US that was a punitive tax increase on a specific industry. So Congress accepted it and now the oil companies are taxed at the same rate as every other company in the US. So when someone talks about tax breaks that the oil companies get that is plain horse shit because they are talking about that illegal 3% differential .

    I don't know of any other industry that comes close to contributing as much money into the treasury as the oil companies. So for the life of me, I don't understand the hatred of them by liberals and Env. kooks. If Exxon, Chevron, Shell, etc pulled all drilling, refining equipment out and told the US to go take a flying fuck to the moon, this country would go under. Exxon makes a majority of their profits from overseas operations anyway. Chavez found out the hard way not to screw with them because when he nationalized the oil equipment of Exxon, Exxon went to court and they will wind up getting billions out of this little commie. Another misconception is that the oil companies that drill in Muslim and commie countries are raking it in due to price of oil going higher. Not. They pay these foreign oil companies a set amount per barrel produced. The oil company gets paid the same whether the current price is $130 or $50.
    Last edited by lacarnut; 07-20-2008 at 05:13 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,889
    Quote Originally Posted by lacarnut View Post
    One thing that the liberals and the ignorant overlook or certainly do not want the public to understand about these leases is that, the oil companies or who ever is leasing pays a fee each and every year. My Uncle was in the business of leasing land in AK for oil exploration. My mom leased over a thousand acres; Exxon did not like private small companies so they went to Congress, got them to double the fees per acre and increase the land tracts that could be purchased by small investors. My Uncle took Exxon to court and lost. Thereby closing his business down.

    The Federal government gets tremendous amounts of money from these oil lease; whether they drill or not is immaterial. They have to pay up each and every year. When the morons in DC talk about tax breaks for the oil companies, they are talking about Corporation taxes. Congress increased the Corporation taxes from 32% (which happens to be the standard rate on every Corp. in the US) to 35%. The World Court told the US that was a punitive tax increase on a specific industry. So Congress accepted it and now the oil companies are taxed at the same rate as every other company in the US. So when someone talks about tax breaks that the oil companies get that is plain horse shit because they are talking about that illegal 3% differential .

    I don't know of any other industry that comes close to contributing as much money into the treasury as the oil companies. So for the life of me, I don't understand the hatred of them by liberals and Env. kooks. If Exxon, Chevron, Shell, etc pulled all drilling, refining equipment out and told the US to go take a flying fuck to the moon, this country would go under. Exxon makes a majority of their profits from overseas operations anyway. Chavez found out the hard way not to screw with them because when he nationalized the oil equipment of Exxon, Exxon went to court and they will wind up getting billions out of this little commie. Another misconception is that the oil companies that drill in Muslim and commie countries are raking it in due to price of oil going higher. Not. They pay these foreign oil companies a set amount per barrel produced. The oil company gets paid the same whether the current price is $130 or $50.
    THe bottom line is these Maoist/Liberals want the United States to go down the tube .That's the whole point !!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba Dawg View Post
    Beaufort.

    In South Carolina, it's Byoo-fort.

    In North Carolina, It's Bow-fort.

    Wonder what it is in Alaska?
    Bear fart?:eek:
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •