McBush and Dubya; Protectors of Wealthy Oil Company Cronies
While McBush and Dubya bang the drums and tell lies about offshore drilling in order to help oil companies make even hundreds of billions more in profit, their hypocritical ravings are being challenged with facts.
As reported in the Charleston Daily Mail: "Congressman Nick Rahall is telling big oil companies to "use it or lose it."
"Rahall, D-W.Va., introduced legislation last week that gives those companies an ultimatum: Start producing oil on their 68 million acres of inactive land or risk federal restrictions on future lease requests.
"A report by the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources, which Rahall chairs, states that oil and gas companies hold leases to 68 million acres of federal land and waters, spread out all across the country, that are not producing anything. An additional 4.8 million barrels of oil could be produced daily if the land was utilized, the report says.
"Rahall's committee report acknowledges that increased domestic drilling could affect gas prices, yet there is no justification to open additional federal lands because oil and gas companies aren't making use of what they have leased.
" 'The debate currently being waged in Congress, however, is over drilling on public lands owned by all Americans, not private lands,' Rahall said. 'While some of my colleagues argue that opening up more federal lands to oil and gas drilling is needed to rein in energy prices, a close look at the facts prove that oil and gas companies are not even able to keep pace with the drilling permits that the federal government has already handed out.' "
Of course McBush, Dubya and the Repugs have short memories regarding some of the terrible consequences of offshore oil drilling.
McClatchy news reminds us: "To the West, drilling rigs also operate off the Pacific shoreline near Santa Barbara, Calif., but to many residents, they are vile reminders of a 1969 blowout on an offshore rig that spewed a giant oil slick into the Pacific. The ecological disaster contributed to the creation of Earth Day the following year.
" 'It still has an impact on our consciousness,' says Linda Krop, an environmental attorney in Santa Barbara. 'You don't see oil on the beach any more but it's very high in people's awareness and their concern about any more development.'
"Offshore drilling is currently permitted off four Gulf Coast states, Alaska and a sliver of California but is banned elsewhere in the United States.
"An estimated 3 million gallons of oil have spilled from oil and gas operations in 73 incidents between 1980 and 1999, according to [associate director of the Minerals Management Service, Chris] Oynes' agency. Environmental groups say the spills illustrate the ecological dangers of offshore drilling, but Oynes said the last significant spill was the 1969 blowout."
But the key word is "significant." Does "significant" denote millions of dollars of taxpayer money for cleanup because the oil companies cry they have no money or fight their cleanup responsibilities in court for decades? Does "insignificant" mean only fewer millions for cleanup but the same ecological and environmental damage as for "significant" only on a "smaller" scale? Thus, the definition of significant versus insignificant, is relative according to Oynes.
McLiar and Pinocchio Bush are also calling for more offshore drilling to hide seven years of criminal Bush administration failures regarding energy and the increase to $4.00 a gallon gas during this administration.
As I wrote in a prior posting: "Because there is no oversight or regulation by this criminal corporate crony Bush administration of hedge funds and other speculative financial instruments and banking systems, this lawless administration has brought about the mortgage lending financial catastrophe, and $4.00 a gallon gasoline prices, a financial disaster for regular hardworking Americans."
Every American should be asking the following of McLiar and Pinocchio Dubya as posed in Slate: "...the next time one of us hears the claim that we need to drill in ANWR or off the coast of Florida to reduce our oil dependence and affect pricing, we should (confidently!) ask why in the world we aren't making use of the 10,000 permits already issued and the 68 million acres of unused, currently leased land to drill on first, and why the additional drilling we've already done since the 90s hasn't reduced prices at all."
As reported in the Charleston Daily Mail: "Congressman Nick Rahall is telling big oil companies to "use it or lose it."
"Rahall, D-W.Va., introduced legislation last week that gives those companies an ultimatum: Start producing oil on their 68 million acres of inactive land or risk federal restrictions on future lease requests.
"A report by the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources, which Rahall chairs, states that oil and gas companies hold leases to 68 million acres of federal land and waters, spread out all across the country, that are not producing anything. An additional 4.8 million barrels of oil could be produced daily if the land was utilized, the report says.
"Rahall's committee report acknowledges that increased domestic drilling could affect gas prices, yet there is no justification to open additional federal lands because oil and gas companies aren't making use of what they have leased.
" 'The debate currently being waged in Congress, however, is over drilling on public lands owned by all Americans, not private lands,' Rahall said. 'While some of my colleagues argue that opening up more federal lands to oil and gas drilling is needed to rein in energy prices, a close look at the facts prove that oil and gas companies are not even able to keep pace with the drilling permits that the federal government has already handed out.' "
Of course McBush, Dubya and the Repugs have short memories regarding some of the terrible consequences of offshore oil drilling.
McClatchy news reminds us: "To the West, drilling rigs also operate off the Pacific shoreline near Santa Barbara, Calif., but to many residents, they are vile reminders of a 1969 blowout on an offshore rig that spewed a giant oil slick into the Pacific. The ecological disaster contributed to the creation of Earth Day the following year.
" 'It still has an impact on our consciousness,' says Linda Krop, an environmental attorney in Santa Barbara. 'You don't see oil on the beach any more but it's very high in people's awareness and their concern about any more development.'
"Offshore drilling is currently permitted off four Gulf Coast states, Alaska and a sliver of California but is banned elsewhere in the United States.
"An estimated 3 million gallons of oil have spilled from oil and gas operations in 73 incidents between 1980 and 1999, according to [associate director of the Minerals Management Service, Chris] Oynes' agency. Environmental groups say the spills illustrate the ecological dangers of offshore drilling, but Oynes said the last significant spill was the 1969 blowout."
But the key word is "significant." Does "significant" denote millions of dollars of taxpayer money for cleanup because the oil companies cry they have no money or fight their cleanup responsibilities in court for decades? Does "insignificant" mean only fewer millions for cleanup but the same ecological and environmental damage as for "significant" only on a "smaller" scale? Thus, the definition of significant versus insignificant, is relative according to Oynes.
McLiar and Pinocchio Bush are also calling for more offshore drilling to hide seven years of criminal Bush administration failures regarding energy and the increase to $4.00 a gallon gas during this administration.
As I wrote in a prior posting: "Because there is no oversight or regulation by this criminal corporate crony Bush administration of hedge funds and other speculative financial instruments and banking systems, this lawless administration has brought about the mortgage lending financial catastrophe, and $4.00 a gallon gasoline prices, a financial disaster for regular hardworking Americans."
Every American should be asking the following of McLiar and Pinocchio Dubya as posed in Slate: "...the next time one of us hears the claim that we need to drill in ANWR or off the coast of Florida to reduce our oil dependence and affect pricing, we should (confidently!) ask why in the world we aren't making use of the 10,000 permits already issued and the 68 million acres of unused, currently leased land to drill on first, and why the additional drilling we've already done since the 90s hasn't reduced prices at all."
Posted by Kaz at 6/23/2008 12:01 PM 
Categories: Bush, Presidential Race, 2008, Bushites, Energy, McCain
Categories: Bush, Presidential Race, 2008, Bushites, Energy, McCain
Comments