Last But Not Leased
The Bear on Jul 21 2008 at 8:28 am | Filed under: Energy Policy
Energy Policy: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pushing the “Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act” to block offshore drilling. The fact is, these offshore rigs may be the ticket to saving both our coasts and our economy.
The act would deny oil companies any new leases unless they can show that they’re diligently exploring and drilling in existing holdings. It’s designed to con the public into thinking the Democrats actually support drilling and the oil companies are restricting supply to drive up prices and profits.
Democrats keep talking about “use it or lose it,” referring to 68 million acres of existing leases. But these leases are being used and are already of limited duration. A lease is merely a permission slip to look for oil, not a guarantee of finding any.
Between 2000 and 2007, drilling of exploratory wells increased 138% while domestic crude oil production fell 12.4% to its lowest level since 1947.
According to the American Petroleum Institute, 5,219 oil wells were completed in the second quarter, up 17% from a year ago and the highest second-quarter oil activity since 1986. So oil companies are spending their profits looking for increased supply.
The idea that oil companies are sitting on oil at $145 a barrel is laughable. Democrats simply oppose more fossil fuel use. Their environmentalist patrons worry more about global warming and polar bears than American energy security and family breadwinners driving to work.
If 68 million federal acres are already leased, what are 2,000 additional acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge going to hurt?
Related
FactCheck.org
Are the Democrats correct in stating that oil companies are leasing 68 million acres in the U.S. that are not being used?
July 17, 2008
Not exactly. More than 4,700 new holes are being drilled on current onshore leases.
SideBear by Jim Mc: I believe that FactCheck is badly in need of a “Check” on its own political bias. This question was raised:
-
“Are the Democrats correct in stating that oil companies are leasing 68 million acres in the U.S., that are nor being used?”
The answer provided by FactCheck’s, Justin Bank, begins with this sentence [phrase]: “Not exactly.”
He then goes on to provide overwhelming evidence that the original “not being used”, assertion is nothing more than a bald-faced lie. Why is such blatant dishonesty benignly characterized as: “Not exactly.”? Why wasn’t Mr. Bank’s finding: “No, the assertion is demonstrably false. Here is the current development status on those lands, which, you will note is made far more onerous and difficult because of the myriad of procedural and regulatory roadblocks that have been put in place by the Federal Government.”
Of course, this could have been added as well: “Sen. Obama’s grossly false claim that these lands “haven’t been touched”, displays either a dangerous ignorance of America’s energy condition, or an utter disregard for the truth.”
Is FactCheck a reliable source ??
It seems that all depends on whose “Facts”, are being “Checked”.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
