Posted on 03/28/2011 3:21:48 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
As oil prices creep back above $100 a barrel, Senate Democrats are dusting off a plan first unveiled in 2008 to take away federal leases from oil companies that rent federal land but don’t use it for drilling and exploration.
The revived bill, which is co-sponsored by Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Bill Nelson of Florida and Charles Schumer of New York, would charge oil companies an extra fee on every acre they are not using for energy production and would force companies to show that they are actively seeking energy sources in the area.
(Excerpt) Read more at aapg.informz.net ...
Charlie Schumer, leading the charge against oil companies as usual. Anything to hurt what's left of the U.S. energy industry.
How will they ever get people down on their knees begging Obama for mercy and handouts, if energy is abundant and inexpensive?
How about issuing some drilling permits?
“charge oil companies an extra fee on every acre they are not using”
I don’t see a problem with this?
They are truly insane. Wonder who pays for what’s in their tanks?? And the planes...
“if energy is abundant and inexpensive? “
If they aren’t utilizing leases they have, they are not helping to make energy abundant or cheap.
On the other hand, democrats are clearly up to no good, as usual.
These leases are contracts. This new “idea” is just to feed the coffers.
Why should they drill where the oil isn’t? This is just a slight of hand to pick your pocket. So why can’t they drill in the Gulf or Alaska Schmuck?
Pray for America
They want to force American companies to sell off their leases (to foreign companies) as part of Obama's new "Buy Foreign" campaign.
If those people are for this legislation, it is bad for the country, period.
No ifs, ands or buts about it.
Some of the leases are impaired by regulatory impositions: most notably right now, in the Gulf of Mexico.
They impaired every single federal lease offshore Florida and the Atlantic years ago, made the companies sue them for relief, when they simply forbade drilling in millions of square miles of the Outer Continental Shelf. The Dems have never had a problem with interfering with property rights, then or now.
I don't have links to back this up at this moment, but from my understanding, a good chunk of the leases granted are worth squat and what does look viable is getting hung up with permit problems or greenie lawsuits.
Its a no win for the petroleum companies.
Yes , while the big O uses military might to help the French protect their oil flow , he won’t allow drilling where the oil is.
Now you are just being ridiculous.
“Why should they drill where the oil isn’t?”
Why would oil companies lease land for drilling where oil isn’t?
This is all to divert attention away from the fact that Dems stand in the way of progress on finding new sources of oil.
“If those people are for this legislation, it is bad for the country, period.
No ifs, ands or buts about it.”
_______
Was it bad when Gov. Palin did the same thing in Alaska? One of Palins accomplisments as Governor was forcing companies to stop squatting on viable leases to manipulate prices. If a company doesn’t want to drill the lease, move on and let the oil be pumped by someone who wants to take the risk. Drill here, drill now is not just a bumper sticker.
If former Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) is such an airhead and a moron, why are the supposedly intellectual senate Democrats essentially doing what she did as governor of our largest state? Buehler? Buehler?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.