We're at war with people who have control of OUR OIL

[OzmO]

If they could find the oil, offer an explanation as to why they would not want to drill on that land (68 million acres) when they DO want to drill off the coast.

Mind you 10 years ago, Clinton wrote this same situation off, so it's not to increase the demand and lower supply, that was done 10 years ago by Clinton.

Obvious answer is - no oil on that land as the research teams had already told the oil companies the chances were very slim, and this is cited in the land lease agreements, and other court papers that no guarantee of oil on that land, holding no party responsible for coming up dry.

are you sure it's not because they haven't explored it fully?

[youandme]

If u know where the oil is..u can builld, float and sinka rig withing 2 years...that can't hurt.

Within 2 years you will see the oil coming from the ground now, in your gas tank. Not 6 or 7 like the Democrats want the general public to think.

Within 2 weeks Bush brought crude oil prices down $20, just by lifting the Exectutive oil Drilling. Within those two weeks I saw my gas price go down 25 cents,  just by w whisper.

Congress says yes to drilling, gas stations, specualtors, and the general public will deflate gas prices, automatically, without even increasing supply.

So no one can argue that you won't see the cents saved turned into dollars saved.

Obama said this drilling will only save cents, when Bush's lift, saved dollars.

Obama said inflate your tires, GOP said I hope they burst, because time to drill off the coast of United States before China does in now.

[OzmO]

If u know where the oil is..u can builld, float and sinka rig withing 2 years...that can't hurt.

that's one oil rig......wish it was that simple


Arnold says more like 10 years..........hmmmmmm

[TerminalPower]

Honestly,  i think off shore drilling is the right thing to do.  But i don't think it will make much of a difference anytime soon.  So in my mind it's a sucker issue.  Set up by the repubs to help shore up swing votes.

Perhaps but something done now to help later is better than...

nothing done now to help later.  Right?

[OzmO]

Perhaps but something done now to help later is better than...

nothing done now to help later.  Right?

Sure,  but is it what it's billed to be?

[youandme]

are you sure it's not because they haven't explored it fully?

Almost positive that the geologists that survey the land, who also get paid to find oil, would want the oil found if it was there. They have mouths to feed at home. And if they were covering something up, where is the protected "whistle blower"?

In the oil business it's all about time, people come and go everyday, no other business fires as many people as the oil and gas production exploration and sell supply side business.

If they are not finding oil, they get fired, sicne they are losing money, if someone screws up on the drill, they are fired accident or not, it just cost the company 100k that hour to stop.

If the oil was here in those 68 million they would have got it. Instead people lost their jobs, and went back to coke exploration research.

[TerminalPower]

unequivocally YES...we have better technology and better means (HDD) to do so.  We have already done it before thousands of times.

[OzmO]

unequivoclly YES...we have better technology and better means (HDD) to do so.  We have already done it before thousands of times.

What i'm talking about is will it really make a difference soon or will it be 10 years?   And if we have 68 million acres unexplored why not focus there first?

[TerminalPower]

What i'm talking about is will it really make a difference soon or will it be 10 years?   And if we have 68 million acres unexplored why not focus there first?

First question...yes and we know this because we have done this before thousands of times.  Can we afford not too when gas could be 12 dollars a gallon or more?

Second question...i am ok with doing that and in the Gulf at the same time why not?