Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 52
Page 2 of 3
Page 2 of 3
"Drill Here, Drill Now"
Total Comments: 52
Page 2 of 3
Page 2 of 3
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.7470 | +0.0007 | +0.05% |
| F | $12.6172 | +0.0216 | +0.29% |
| C | $10.5209 | +0.0356 | +0.83% |
| S | $12.5059 | +0.1427 | +2.45% |
| I | $14.5176 | +0.1584 | +1.84% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $12.6448 | +0.0773 | +1.24% |
| L 2030 | $12.7606 | +0.0676 | +1.09% |
| L 2020 | $12.9752 | +0.0566 | +0.91% |
| L 2010 | $13.8966 | +0.0292 | +0.46% |
| L Income | $12.8270 | +0.0186 | +0.33% |
January 9, 2009
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
© 2009 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
energy policy
IRS
Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:31 AM
Post Reply
We need to do everything we can to provide the energy needed to run this economy which produces so much of the world's goods & services. That includes drilling everywhere for oil & gas, putting up nuclear power plants, installing wind turbines where there is wind, solar collectors in the desert and elsewhere, bio-fuels from organic wastes, etc. By not allowing drilling we are in effect outsourcing environmental problems to third world countries where their environmental standards are more lax, resulting in greater harm to the environment than if we drilled here. Additionally we would be providing good paying jobs in that industry and its associated sectors. Much progress has been made in drilling technology, we can do this!
I Say, Pump 'em Dry
FAA
Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:09 PM
Post Reply
We should preserve our oil, and pump all the other countries dry.
then, in about 10 years, we'll have the only untapped oil reserves left,
and then, we could be the world's Saudi Arabia, and demand exhorbitant prices from all those sand countries.
Re: I Say, Pump 'em Dry
DA
Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:01 PM
Drilling Now
DOI
Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:43 PM
Post Reply
I fully promote drilling within the 200 mile coastal limit. Of course to be fair, there should be clear environmental safegaurds written into leases and/or permitting laws, including strict enforcement and huge fines for irrresponsible drilling and subsequent damage to any environmental resource. The "fines" can go to California and selected environmental NGO's. BUT, California and the environmental pinheads cannot receive or use ANY of the newly discovered oil or royalties..., their shares go into federal reserves. They CAN, however, use the "fine-funds" to develop new "green" alternatives which would eventually fully replace our present use of fossil fuels (as they believe can and should happen) ...I would also suggest that any oil found in US territory, stay in US territory. No more selling Alaskan oil to Japan or any other country. Less oil to Japan/others might then result in more oil dependent jobs returning to the US. Sounds like a win-win to me!
California
NAVY
Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:52 PM
Post Reply
If California made the law to stop, California should pay not the Feds. By the way, for you Demonocrats, McCain said stop the speculators quite awhile ago. And check how much stock your Demonocrat Politician have invested in oil and the lawyers for them.
Re: California
CSRS - Retired
Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:44 PM
Cheers,
Hugh
Re: California
DOD
Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:17 AM
I am one of those "demon cats" you speak of, with great dislike & overflowing contempt. I happen to support nuclear energy, more drilling, clean coal, etc. Obviously, you proudly wear your veterans status & republican party status on you sleeve. The only thing missing was your religion. You look at the world, with a lense that is distorted, smudged, & dirty. You might be hopeless.
Blaming oil companies for govt. delays
Dod Agency
Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:04 PM
Post Reply
The Democrats, led by Speaker Pelosi, have been saying there is no need to expand drilling in ANWR, coastal areas, etc. because they are not using the drilling leases they already have. As it turns out, the government is actually preventing the companies from using the existing leases--as well as keeping American companies from drilling into our existing resources that are off limits as well.
In short, the Democrats like us being dependent on foreign oil, or are at least willing to keep us dependent on foreign oil, based on specious reasons as this case demonstrates.
Same old same old
US Forest Service
Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:10 AM
Post Reply
I'd like to remind the DOD analyst and engineer that 3 decades ago the Carter administration passed numerous tax incentives for developing alternatives. When Reagan took office in 1981 in an effort to please big oil those incentives were gutted, setting our efforts back decades. So yes, one party IS more responsible for the mess we're in. And I agree, it's going to take decades to move from the oil based economy to cleaner alternatives. That's why I said the time to get to work on this is now. Actually, it was decades ago but the GOP got in the way.
Dems Can't Have It Both Ways
DoD
Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:46 AM
Post Reply
Biden is the one who began the chant that oil companies were drilling their current leases. Now we find out the dems are the ones who blocked them. Interesting to find out the truth - Dems speak with forked tongues. The Dems are the ones who are saying our oil reserves won't be able to supply the world demand. Our oil is our own - it would supply our needs, not the world (another lie the Dems have been caught in).
Re: Dems Can't Have It Both Ways
DOD
Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:35 AM
Re: Dems Can't Have It Both Ways
DA
Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:04 PM