Sure, I do, so does the Congress who wrote the laws back before we were born. How is drill it or lose it going to help? My next point is if there was oil under the ground they would drill on it. Since they have paid the government for the lease they are stuck with it when there is no oil under the ground. Keep in mind that if there is oil there it takes at least ten years just to start drilling due to regulations. This is the part you are not being told by your con men I mean Congressmen. As I stated the land does not have to have a drilling rig on it for it to be worked. That rig is the end of the process not the beginning. So the oil company pays the government say, 3 million dollars for the lease. Then they have to pay for a permit for the test well, and then they have to pay the government for the actual oil rig. So after they pay the government 12 million dollars they can start to drill and if they hit a dry hole and have to move the rig over a few thousand feet to try again they have to pay the Government for a new permit. Are you as an oil company executive going to toss 15 or 20 million a pop just because you hope there is oil there or the potential for oil there or are you going to make sure there is a good chance before you start to drill? So why are your Congressmen friends trying to shorten the leases? Maybe to line their pockes with bribe money? How much does the envrionmental lobby pay them? Ever wonder why they are against the price of oil going down? Are they invested in speculation?



Not at all, I am sure there is oil on some of the land, even your lying idiot Con men say that the companies are drilling there but there is acreage that is not being drilled. Could it be that that land has been surveyed and is not going to produce enough oil to be worth the expense of drilling? If you bothered to read what I wrote you would have seen that the process as laid out by the Congress is time consuming. You start off with the lease because there are signs that there might be oil in that area. You then do a detailed survey of that land to find the most likely spots where you might find oil. Still no oil yet, and a few years have gone by. Your geologist says this looks like a good spot to put in a test well. Environmental impact studies are done, challenges are made by environmentalists, all of that has to go through the courts, when it is resolved they can now dig a test well. If it comes up with oil they have to get another permit, more studies, more court challenges, and more years. Still no one has put up an oil rig. Drill it or lose it. You finally clear the court system and set up your rig and drill only to find out the place you are drilling is on the edge of the pocket and now you have to change direction of the drill. If you are too far off you have to move the rig. Another permit and more court challenges and more years spent. Still no oil, but you know where it is. On average it takes 10 years just to get to the oil. So ten to twenty years is about right for a lease under good conditions. If you find that some endangered field mouse lives there then you have to stop all work until that is remedied. Can the drilling be done in such a way as to not hurt the mouse?

Again the point is that the leases already have a drop dead date. If they don’t find oil they can’t renew the lease and all the work done on that land was for nothing. So they have to work quickly because time is short. If they find oil on the ninth year and don’t bring in a well they can lose the lease so how long can they sit on the land and not produce oil? Maybe three years on a ten year lease if they are lucky.

Again I am telling you that what those dishonest congressmen have done is played on your fears with lies. The environmental lobby does not want new drilling and this is their answer, tell the people that 68 million acres are sitting without any work being done so the oil companies are trying to shaft us all. just remember that the oil companies testified before congress many times since the 70’s and each time they have begged for the freedom to drill where they know there is oil and the Congress has stopped them each time. This time they are having a hard time because now we have the internet and can look things up. History has proven that when we stop drilling, stop building refineries, and stop building nuclear power plants the price of oil goes up. Yes, evil oil has stated that nuclear power plants are needed to help keep the price of oil down. This is all part of the Congressional record and easily checked if you want to know the truth.



Why are you advocating higher oil prices?

Doc, it allows them political cover by saying that they are for drilling while at the same time preventing it as their political environmentally friendly masters dictate.

Be sure to let me know if you find some oil there, and if you do I want you to know that I have always loved you. buddy, friend, pal!  

Oil and gas leases are issued for a 10-year term that can be renewed.

Higher gas prices would force our country to seek other options, such as, greater energy efficiencies and the development of alternative fuels.

I will grant you that necessity is the mother of invention the price of gas is already high enough to get people working but since the price it artificially high the urgency is not there yet. What I mean is that we all know the price is not the real price so it will come down eventually why waste time working on an alternative no one will use in five years? All the higher prices will do is hurt people not spur invention.

Look at all the things invented when we had the gas shortage in the 70’s none of it is being used today, instead we are dusting off stuff invented in the 40’s and updating them rather than new things because it will take years to develop and test and no one believes the price will stay this high long enough to bring new inventions to market.



But you said that the drill it or lose it bill was supposed to do this and now you say that the government is already doing what the bill is designed to do.



Are you sure this is the reason? Before you said that they were sitting on the leases to profit from the high oil price, now you seem to be saying that two thirds of the leases are being worked and the oil companies can’t keep up with what they have. Could it be that the oil companies have looked at the land and found that it is not worth drilling there yet and other lands look better and cheaper to drill so they go after those first? I don’t know for sure so I am speculating.



Right some can be renewed but at what cost? They have to pay a fee to get the rights and a yearly rent to the government. So the greedy oil companies are spending billions of dollars on leases they got 10 years ago hoping the price will go up so they can not drill the land at the high price just to drive the price even higher. Sounds a bit strange and convoluted to me.

Far be it of me to call you a liar, it is just that only 15% of all U.S. coast lines are authorized for drilling, meaning 85% if off limits including the 400 billion barrels of the coast of Santa Barbra and the I forget how many billions of oil and natural gas off the coast of Florida, that the Chinese are drilling for the Cubans. As far as I know only Texas and Louisiana allow drilling off shore. Sorry I just re-read what you wrote. OUTER shelf, and the stuff I am talking about is closer to home. Apples and oranges kind of argument.

Special report with Brit Hume Fox News Channel Monday this week. I believe you can view it on their website.



Okay I have been to the site and now I get where you are coming from. Keep in mind that all they are talking about is federal land not state controlled property. The 400 million barrels of oil off the Santa Barbra coast is controlled by the state of California not the federal government. Those wells were capped off when the state banned offshore drilling.

Here my point is that you are taking federal statistics but not the US as a whole. South Dakota has ten billion barrels on federal land but the state won’t let people drill there.

So it is your contention that the news story was a lie? Going to the MMS site you will find the same information. It is just that I watched the new for the last week the day I replied to you and I remembered the story.

I knew it! I knew it! You are a left wing nut job with no solutions to the problem just excuses why other people’s solutions won’t work.
So far your solution is to let the price go up and then people will use alternative sources of fuel and energy. The problem with that is there are no alternative sources of energy or fuel that is closer than 10 years away. Solar cars are impractical, wind power does not work, and no one will buy a nuclear powered car. And the consequences of your solution are people freezing to death because they can’t afford to heat their homes when winter comes.

You see the high price of oil is more than gasoline. Oil heats homes, provides electricity (to heat homes) diesel fuel to move produce and products to market. Higher oil prices mean that the cost of everything goes up. When your chewing gum costs a dollar, because of high oil prices you will complain that the president is not helping the poor and middle class. So what if every nut job thinks that higher prices are good to save the planet and reduce pollution. But in saving the planet and reducing pollution people that don’t even own or drive cars will suffer. The cost of food is going up with the price of oil. I think it is called unintended consequences. So thinking short term the idea sounds good but long term the idea will kill people.

No fair-minded person actually believes that Fox News is unbiased, so pretending that it is calls for steely corporate resolve.

Norvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, and on May 20 he let the mask slip in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal.

Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:

Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.
Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.

Norvell never says the word "conservative" in describing "where [Fox's anchorpeople] stand on particular stories," or what Fox's viewers "know … they are getting." But in context, Norvell clearly is using the example of Fox News to argue that political bias is acceptable when it isn't subsidized by the public (as his op-ed's target, the leftish BBC, is), and when the bias is acknowledged. Norvell's little joke about clubbing lefties to death should satisfy even the most literal-minded that the bias Norvell describes is a conservative one. (Lord only knows where Norvell acquired the erroneous belief that Fox News is "honest" about its conservative slant; perhaps he's so used to Fox's protestations of objectivity being ignored that he literally forgot that they continue to be uttered.)

Fox News has little to lose in terms of credibility—sensible viewers discounted Fox News for conservative bias years ago.

I am glad you understand the process now can you exercise it by being intellectually honest? I have never seen the news slanted one way or another on fox. I have seen commentators on fox state opinions one way or the other. You my friend need to learn the difference between people presenting the news and those commenting on the news.

The other networks don’t make a distinction between their opinion and how they present the news so it all comes out the same. This is why Fox News has only 2 million potential viewers against the 300 million potential viewers for the other networks and still has the highest ratings. Are you suggesting that liberals don’t watch Fox news, or that only 2 million people in the country are conservative?

CNN used to be the most popular news network in the world, not because it was unbiased but because it was on 24/7 and you could get some news any time you needed a fix. When Fox News came along they decided to be fair in their reporting of the news. They did not slant left or right they gave you the story as news organizations are supposed to do. Bill O’Riley gets hammered by left and right because his opinions are his, some are liberal some are conservative depending on the subject. Special Report is different. They just give you the news. The last 20 minutes they have people come on and state their opinions of the news presented that day. They have one conservative and two liberals on one day and the next they have two conservatives and one liberal and alternate each day. No one side gets the upper hand and no one is favored above the other.

It is just that when the rest of the news organizations are left and far left and really far left and in the case of MSNBC so far left you can’t see the left leaning people any more, and you come up with a news organization like Fox that tries to go down the middle they seem far right. They say this is what happened this is what the left said this is what the right said next story. You are left to judge who is right or wrong. The left scream that doing that is not right because there is no political spin in their direction so it must be conservative.

By the way that article you quoted was explaining the difference between Fox news and the BBC which has been far left for decades but never admitted it. While on Fox you have people say this is where I stand on the issue. Based on that you know that he or she as a bias and what direction they lean. This allows you to judge the value of the comment. You don’t get that with BBC or CBC.

This is where that accurate thinking comes into play.

So you agree that Fix news is bias?

Most so-called thinking is nothing but an expression of feeling through the emotions. And the emotions are not dependable. The accurate thinker submits his emotional desires and decisions to reason for judiciary examination before he relies upon them as being sound. He knows the mind is more dependable than the heart.

Well, based on your two emotional responses and your choice to ignore the information presented to you, I would have to accurately think that; although you understand the principle; you have not learned to put it into practical application. This calls your judgment and credibility into question. Due to your intellectual dishonesty or lack of reading comprehension, or your chosen ignorance, you have demonstrated your inability to discern fact from fiction and allow your emotions to guide you.