Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (399775)	7/18/2008 9:11:58 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1579770

Because I don't think they signed a lease to sit on. what are they doing on the huge area they got in '06? I don't know - you'd have to look at it block by block. You could check the SEC filings of the companies who submitted winning bids maybe. They're probably still filing paperwork, making plans. There are lots of permits required for doing anything on leased acreage: gomr.mms.gov

To: Road Walker who wrote (399775)	7/18/2008 12:50:38 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1579770

Cutting through the disinformation of the Democratic leadership: Trying to blunt criticism, Democrats seek to spur oil exploration on available land By ANDREW TAYLOR 17 July, 2008 Associated Press Newswires Democrats pointed out that any new offshore leasing -- sought by the administration, most Republicans and some Democrats -- would not produce oil for a decade or so ... .... Note that in making this argument, the anti-drilling folks are admitting it takes a up to a decade in some cases (particularly when drilling in deepwater frontier regions) to do the permitting, exploration, logistics and drilling to get to oil production. Since they know this, what is their goal in trying to shorten the 10 year federal offshore lease terms? I'd say it's actually to threaten to prevent drilling even where currently allowed by shortening the lease terms to an impossibly short period. IOW, I believe the Congressional Democratic leadership is simply trying to spitefully hit back at the hated oil industry and threaten their ability to drill even in places where now allowed. Hard ball politics, the public and the economy be damned. It doesn't matter to them if their green lobby driven policies are harmful for the country if they can fool the public about it. ... Democrats are scrambling to appear pro-drilling -- hence the "Drill Act" title for Thursday's bill -- even as leaders such as Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are dead set against reversing the drilling bans. .... Democrats know 73% of the public favors lifting the offshore drilling bans (lower in CA and probably FL). But they are tight with the green lobby, so what can they do? They can try to project a false posture based on disinformation, hoping to fool the voters. They want to "appear pro-drilling" while actually being anti-drilling. This is a hot issue in the fall of an election year. The legislative moratorium on offshore leasing has to be renewed each year by September 30. Bush is threatening to veto any legislation extending the moratorium. So the Congressional Democratic leadership is really desparate. Obama has to be feeling the pressure too. I've predicted Obama will come out for an end to the moratorium. But I could be wrong. The left is watching him and bitching at every subtle move to the center he tries to make. A vote is coming - how will he vote? Or will he even vote? Note that Obama has voted against the green lobby in the past, under pressure from coal miners in his home state. Gasp, as a state legislator he actually voted to condemn Kyoto! LOL Obama shifts environmental stance ; Had embraced coal industry in Senate run Ken Dilanian 18 July, 2008 USA Today WASHINGTON -- In May 1998, at the urging of the state's coal industry, the Illinois Legislature passed a bill condemning the Kyoto global warming treaty and forbidding state efforts to regulate greenhouse gases. Barack Obama voted "aye." The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee now calls climate change "one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation," and proposes cutting carbon emissions 80% by 2050. But as a state senator, from 1997 to 2004, he usually supported bills sought by coal interests, according to legislative records and interviews. .... Still, Obama, who touts his independence from special interests, made a point of embracing the coal industry as part of his quest for statewide office. When he ran for U.S. Senate in 2004, he was flanked by mineworkers to proclaim that "there's always going to be a role for coal" in Illinois. ... Offshore drilling is really an emotionally driven issue. Statistically, there is a much bigger environmental risk from importing oil by tanker than from offshore drilling. Its just one of many irrational holy causes that liberals are dedicated to. Like gay marriage, partial birth abortion, socialized health care, defeat in Iraq, etc.