President Obama gives $2 billion for off-shore drilling

[TheFranklinParty]

Because America just doesn't let anybody of any type just die on the street in front of an Emergency room as you'd obviously perfer if they didn't have a Green Card.



OK like the Charlie Brown cartoon... If you can't be right be wrong VERY VERY loud.

But if one can read they know in EVERY scrap of purposed legislation for Health Insurance Reform it ALL STATES it is for legal US citizens.

But please continue the lies. As they are busted out your position is only weakened.

I beg to differ. I think this is where these bills create so much concern and frustration. No where in the original House bill does it use the term U.S. citizen. The term they use is American. Attorneys are very careful about the words they choose, so we can only assume they chose American, so that it might encompass anyone from this continent. This is the kind of wiggle room that makes people nervous. If you mean U.S. Citizens then say U.S. Citizens.

From page 4

3 SEC. 100. PURPOSE; TABLE OF CONTENTS OF DIVISION;​

4 GENERAL DEFINITIONS.​

5 a) PURPOSE.—​

6 1) I. The purpose of this division​

7 is to provide affordable, quality health care for all​

8 Americans and reduce the growth in health care​

spending.

 

[PLC1]

I don't have a problem loaning this money to Brazil persay, if it can help our trade relationship etc then I can easily support it.

I just think we ought to be drilling offshore in the US (the areas that were recently blocked) as well.

I understand what you're saying about using tax dollars to support Brazil's oil production. How that is an effective use of your money and mine escapes me.

But, you seem to be advocating that "we" drill offshore in the US. Does that mean that we, the people, i.e., the federal government should be drilling for oil off our shores, or anywhere else?

Oil companies currently hold leases to land for the purpose of exploring for oil. It seems to me that they are better equipped to decide whether or not such exploration is likely to be profitable than the federal government is.

 

[asur]

TheFranklinParty makes a good point - How do they define Americans?
It would seem this is purposely vague, to include anyone residing
inside the continent, illegally or not, including terrorists!



GENERAL DEFINITIONS.
(a) PURPOSE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The purpose of this division is to provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending.

The scary truth is that government never reduces the cost of anything!
It rarely produces quality!

 

[BigRob]

But, you seem to be advocating that "we" drill offshore in the US. Does that mean that we, the people, i.e., the federal government should be drilling for oil off our shores, or anywhere else?

Oil companies currently hold leases to land for the purpose of exploring for oil. It seems to me that they are better equipped to decide whether or not such exploration is likely to be profitable than the federal government is.

What it means is that the Federal government has made it illegal to drill in many offshore places in United States waters. It does no oil company any good to "hold a lease" for an area that the government has declared it is illegal to drill in.

 

[top gun]

I beg to differ. I think this is where these bills create so much concern and frustration. No where in the original House bill does it use the term U.S. citizen. The term they use is American. Attorneys are very careful about the words they choose, so we can only assume they chose American, so that it might encompass anyone from this continent. This is the kind of wiggle room that makes people nervous. If you mean U.S. Citizens then say U.S. Citizens.

From page 4

3 SEC. 100. PURPOSE; TABLE OF CONTENTS OF DIVISION;​

4 GENERAL DEFINITIONS.​

5 a) PURPOSE.—​

6 1) I. The purpose of this division​

7 is to provide affordable, quality health care for all​

8 Americans and reduce the growth in health care​

spending.

Americans would not mean illegal aliens.

American & US citizen are routinely used interchangeably.

Illegal aliens are by definition NOT Americans (or US citizens)... hence the labeling illegal aliens.

I'm sure they'd have no problem saying US citizens.

 

[asur]

TopGun wrote -

Americans would not mean illegal aliens.

Says who? You are wrong as usual.

Americans can mean by common definition: Of or relating to North or South America, the West Indies, or the Western Hemisphere.

Dems aren't going to change it to state US citizen, because they need the votes. It's either that or they make all illegals legal. Take your pick.

 

[PLC1]

What it means is that the Federal government has made it illegal to drill in many offshore places in United States waters. It does no oil company any good to "hold a lease" for an area that the government has declared it is illegal to drill in.

No, they can't sell oil and gas leases, then make it illegal to drill for oil and gas.

Article from MSNBC (admittedly, a "liberal" source)

An Associated Press computer analysis of Bureau of Land Management records found that 80 percent of federal lands leased for oil and gas production in Wyoming are producing no oil or gas. Neither are 83 percent of the leased acres in Montana, 77 percent in Utah, 71 percent in Colorado, 36 percent in New Mexico and 99 percent in Nevada.

And the government is auctioning off sites for oil and gas:
Government to auction offshore oil leases despite legal uncertainty

Reporting from Washington — The Obama administration will auction off a new batch of oil-drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico next month in spite of a court ruling that threw out the nation's offshore leasing plan this year.
Officials from the Minerals Management Service, an arm of the Interior Department, gave notice this morning that they will take bids for drilling on 18 million acres off the coast of Texas. The leasing tracts are located as close as 9 miles from shore and as far as 250.

Further, unused leases aren't a creature of the Obama administration:

Most oil leases on public lands go unused

WASHINGTON - Nearly three-fourths of the 40 million acres of public land currently leased for oil and gas development in the continental United States outside Alaska isn’t producing any oil or gas, federal records show, even as the Bush administration pushes to open more environmentally sensitive public lands for oil and gas development.

The fact of the matter is that oil exploration is thwarted more by the volatile price of petroleum than anything else. When the price is high, it makes sense to drill, but by the time the wells are producing it is a real crap shoot whether the price will be more or less than the cost of recovery.

Drill baby drill makes a great bumper sticker. it fits in a small space, and is easily understood. It is also an oversimplification of the energy situation, and not likely to produce results in the real world.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Americans would not mean illegal aliens.

American & US citizen are routinely used interchangeably.

Illegal aliens are by definition NOT Americans (or US citizens)... hence the labeling illegal aliens.

I'm sure they'd have no problem saying US citizens.

I have to agree with ASUR that if they wanted it to say U.S. Citizens they would have. I appreciate your trusting nature, but I don't trust wordsmiths with law degrees.

These kinds of games and tricks are part of the political machine. This is why the funding of one of the richest companies in the world so they can drill off of Brazil is so suspect. This is being done only weeks after a U.S. (Ohio) company was denied a co-signature on a $1B loan to expand their ability to enrich Urianium for nuclear power.

Makes you wonder why we would give money to a foreign entity for a fuel that they will sell to us versus supporting a privately funded loan that would provide power, jobs, and economic support for an area of the country that has 12% unemployment.

 

[BigRob]

No, they can't sell oil and gas leases, then make it illegal to drill for oil and gas.

Article from MSNBC (admittedly, a "liberal" source)

They cannot sell the lease and then make it illegal to drill I agree. Perhaps I did not word myself well. What I am opposed to is the very idea of making anywhere offshore (with small exception) illegal to drill.

And the government is auctioning off sites for oil and gas:
Government to auction offshore oil leases despite legal uncertainty

Yes, in the area that it is already legal to drill in, which is pretty small, so so what?

Further, unused leases aren't a creature of the Obama administration:

Most oil leases on public lands go unused

Not sure I ever said otherwise.

The fact of the matter is that oil exploration is thwarted more by the volatile price of petroleum than anything else. When the price is high, it makes sense to drill, but by the time the wells are producing it is a real crap shoot whether the price will be more or less than the cost of recovery.

Drill baby drill makes a great bumper sticker. it fits in a small space, and is easily understood. It is also an oversimplification of the energy situation, and not likely to produce results in the real world.

I agree that the price of oil has a lot to do with things, but it is illegal (by Federal mandate) to drill most of the national outer continental shelf, which many will estimate has billions of barrels of oil.

If we are serious about "energy independence" and ending out reliance on "foreign oil" (which it seems we are not), then why are those areas still off limits to drill and explore in?

Also, in many cases, for private companies who have to cap a well when the price goes down, it never makes sense to reopen that well regardless of the price of gasoline.

Further, most of the arguments against offshore drilling are environmental in nature, not cost related, and are completely ridiculous in my view.

 

[PLC1]

They cannot sell the lease and then make it illegal to drill I agree. Perhaps I did not word myself well. What I am opposed to is the very idea of making anywhere offshore (with small exception) illegal to drill.



Yes, in the area that it is already legal to drill in, which is pretty small, so so what?



Not sure I ever said otherwise.



I agree that the price of oil has a lot to do with things, but it is illegal (by Federal mandate) to drill most of the national outer continental shelf, which many will estimate has billions of barrels of oil.

If we are serious about "energy independence" and ending out reliance on "foreign oil" (which it seems we are not), then why are those areas still off limits to drill and explore in?

Also, in many cases, for private companies who have to cap a well when the price goes down, it never makes sense to reopen that well regardless of the price of gasoline.

Further, most of the arguments against offshore drilling are environmental in nature, not cost related, and are completely ridiculous in my view.

That is your view, which you do share with others. The fact of the matter is that the argument that the US has enough economically recoverable oil to affect the global price, or even to somehow require that our oil only be sold domestically, is simply not supportable from an economic point of view, nor from a political one. Were we to significantly increase oil production, what response do you think we'd get from Saudi Arabia? Hint: They have lots of easily recoverable oil. Their policy is to sell enough of it to keep the supply and demand equation profitable for them without making it profitable to try to recover more expensive sources.

The myth that we have plenty of domestic oil just waiting for the environmentalists to allow us to exploit it is just that: a myth.

 

[Greco]

I learned some more about your post. Your claim is false. Obama didn't "give" them anything. You might be taken more serious if you didn't just make up your own claims so you could rail away against them.

 

[PLC1]

I learned some more about your post. Your claim is false. Obama didn't "give" them anything. You might be taken more serious if you didn't just make up your own claims so you could rail away against them.

Correct. It is a loan.

The real question is how we're able to give anyone a loan when we don't have enough to keep the government going without borrowing from someone else.

If a family has credit cards maxed, no money in the bank, is upside down in their mortgage, and living from paycheck to paycheck, how could they loan anyone money? Of course, a family can't print their own, at least not legally.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

I learned some more about your post. Your claim is false. Obama didn't "give" them anything. You might be taken more serious if you didn't just make up your own claims so you could rail away against them.

Right... We're giving (YES GIVING) them $2 Billion dollars, to one of the "largest corporations in the Americas", in the form of loans or loan guarantees. Interestingly, George Soros' incestuous relationship with Obama is in the thick of this:

Is it a coincidence that Obama backer George Soros repositioned himself in Petrobras to get dividends just a few days before Obama committed $2 billion in loans and guarantees for Petrobras’ offshore operations? - Ed Morrissey

- George Soros

This with an investment position that has nearly all occurred this year, detailed in this Bloomberg article:

Soros Hedge Fund Bought Petrobras Stake Worth $811 Million

I fear that if the truth is ever allowed to surface, Soros is going to make Bernie Madoff look like a piker. Only devastating the investment funds of thousands of people, Soros, Obama and Co. are headed to be responsible for the total destitution of millions.

And your criticism of Big Rob? No claims were made up here. This is history unfolding right before your eyes. YOU might be taken more seriously if you took a bit more time to examine the bias of your sources, and try to use some objectivity.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Correct. It is a loan.

The real question is how we're able to give anyone a loan when we don't have enough to keep the government going without borrowing from someone else.

If a family has credit cards maxed, no money in the bank, is upside down in their mortgage, and living from paycheck to paycheck, how could they loan anyone money? Of course, a family can't print their own, at least not legally.

Silly kitty! Tricks are for Libs!

Yes, just print the money. Yes, just "loan" it out, even though loans often never get paid when handed out in the form of and under the guise of foreign aid.

This is akin to a family being in financial trouble, and taking out a new credit card with the sole purpose of going to the casino and funding your attempt to get some working capital. Just keep diggin' that hole a little deeper, a little deeper... And just waiting for it all to cave in.

 

[BigRob]

That is your view, which you do share with others. The fact of the matter is that the argument that the US has enough economically recoverable oil to affect the global price, or even to somehow require that our oil only be sold domestically, is simply not supportable from an economic point of view, nor from a political one. Were we to significantly increase oil production, what response do you think we'd get from Saudi Arabia? Hint: They have lots of easily recoverable oil. Their policy is to sell enough of it to keep the supply and demand equation profitable for them without making it profitable to try to recover more expensive sources.

The myth that we have plenty of domestic oil just waiting for the environmentalists to allow us to exploit it is just that: a myth.

That is awfully interesting, since our own government in a 2006 report by the Minerals Management Service (based on 2003 information) estimated the "quantity of undiscovered technically recoverable resources ranges from 66.6 to 115.3 billion barrels of oil and 326.4 to 565.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas." - Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Assessment 2006. Where is that? The outer continental shelf, which has been mostly banned from drilling.

As for Saudi Arabia, you seem to indicate that you want to be beholden to the Saudi monarchy when creating domestic policy. You will have to forgive me if I do not agree.

And no, it would be impossible to only sell our own domestically, after all it is a world market, but why import it when we can become a net exporter?