GOP Blocks DRILL Bill

[TheStripey1]

can someone from the obstructionist republican party explain why their representatives voted against the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands bill?

After Calls for More Drilling, House GOP Blocks Measure to Promote Responsible Oil Production
WASHINGTON, DC - 7/18/2008



Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) today questioned why House Republicans, who say they want to increase domestic oil supply, blocked a measure that would have promoted responsible drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and on land already leased to companies for production, but which is not currently being drilled. The bill – the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands (DRILL) Act – was defeated this afternoon by a vote of 244 – 173 under suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds majority.

“Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands. With Americans being pummeled by $4 a gallon gas, it is high time America did just that,” stated Rep. Hoyer. “However, after months of suggesting that the only answer to bring down gas prices is more drilling, House Republicans today showed their true colors by blocking the DRILL Act – a bill which would have decisively and responsibly increased domestic oil production."

Specifically, the DRILL Act would speed up the leasing process of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), an area of land west of the federally-protected Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) that contains an estimated 10.6 billion barrels of oil to ANWR’s 10.4 billion. The bill also incorporates the ‘Use It or Lose It’ legislation, which simply requires oil producers to drill on the leases they already have or relinquish them so that another company can produce the oil there. Finally, it would call on the President to use the powers of his office to facilitate the completion of Alaskan oil and gas pipelines, so products will get to market sooner, and it ensures that Alaskan oil will fill American gas tanks, not be exported to other countries.

“In addition to promoting responsible drilling, this bill tells the oil companies to drill on the leases they have, or let somebody else do it - but don’t just sit on them while Americans are paying $4 a gallon,” stated Hoyer. “I see no reason to give even more handouts of public land to companies enjoying record profits and billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Let them start on the land they already have, which will bring oil to the market more quickly.”
Oil and gas companies currently hold leases to 68 million acres of federal land and the Outer Continental Shelf on which they are not producing oil and gas. Eighty-one percent of estimated oil and gas resources on federal lands and waters are already available for development – 311 million acres. These reserves are equal to 107 billion barrels of oil and 658 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - more than 14 years of current U.S. oil consumption (7.5 billion barrels per year).

“Oil and gas companies currently have access to more than eighty percent of oil and gas resources on federal lands and waters,” stated Hoyer. “We need to focus on developing the extensive resources currently available before opening up additional land for drilling. And we need to look to investing more in alternatives, which are critical to our long-term, sustainable energy future.”

 

[editec]

Again, I do so wish we had the text of these leases, but they are leases after all,

One presumes that means they purchased the right to drill (or not, as they choose) for a given period of time.

 

[Ravi]

Some of the non-producing leases under scrutiny are in thousands of feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico, where a decade can pass between finding and tapping a new reservoir. The winning bid for such leases can encompass tens of thousands of acres and cost $100 million or more.
"I think it gives you a good idea why our leases are arranged in 5-, 8- and 10-year terms," said Randall Luthi, director of the Minerals Management Service, the arm of the Interior Department charged with overseeing offshore drilling in federal waters.


"If a company gets to the end of those terms and they're not making significant progress — and I do mean significant progress toward actually producing — those leases come back and we sell them again," he said.
Leases also can get tied up in court, often over environmental concerns. Or companies can determine that developing a particular tract doesn't make economic sense. Either way, they're listed on the federal government's books as "non-producing."


Shell Oil Co., for example, is involved in a legal dispute in Alaska that prompted it to abandon a proposed course of exploratory drilling in the Beaufort Sea this summer. Shell has said it remains committed to offshore drilling in Alaska, but production is likely as far as 12 years off.

The Associated Press: Getting lease for oil drilling is just the start

 

[TheStripey1]

So why should they be given or sold new leases when they haven't yet drilled in what they already have leased?

And why... which was the crux of my TO, did the GOP vote against forcing the oil companies to drill on the lands they have already leased?

Should we lease them all of our lands and then let them pick and choose which ones to drill on and when?

 

[dilloduck]

I got a better question for ya. Why are democrats suddenly trying to encourage drilling?

 

[TheStripey1]

feel free to start your own thread asking that very question...

but since this is my thread...

answer my question...

can you or is thread derailment your only course of action here?

 

[Ninja]

I got a better question for ya. Why are democrats suddenly trying to encourage drilling?

Political expedience.

 

[Wow]

This bill probably prevents new leases from being offered.
Democrats are trying to destroy the middle-class.

 

[Ravi]

So why should they be given or sold new leases when they haven't yet drilled in what they already have leased?

And why... which was the crux of my TO, did the GOP vote against forcing the oil companies to drill on the lands they have already leased?

Should we lease them all of our lands and then let them pick and choose which ones to drill on and when?

Why did the GOP vote against it? They probably don't believe in forcing business to perform to the satisfaction of the population, for one thing. And they are heavily funded by oil lobbyists, so they'd rather not cross them.

I don't think they should be given new leases, and of course they would like to own the mineral rights to the entire country.

What I'd like to know is if the oil companies can figure out the feasibility of drilling or not, why can't the government?

 

[dilloduck]

Why did the GOP vote against it? They probably don't believe in forcing business to perform to the satisfaction of the population, for one thing. And they are heavily funded by oil lobbyists, so they'd rather not cross them.

I don't think they should be given new leases, and of course they would like to own the mineral rights to the entire country.

What I'd like to know is if the oil companies can figure out the feasibility of drilling or not, why can't the government?

What do you mean "feasibility of drilling" ?

 

[Ravi]

If it's worth it or not. The claim was made that some of the land isn't being drilled because there isn't enough oil to make it worthwhile.

 

[dilloduck]

If it's worth it or not. The claim was made that some of the land isn't being drilled because there isn't enough oil to make it worthwhile.

So you want the government to decide that ?

 

[Charles_Main]

So you want the government to decide that ?

Sounds to me like this bill was going to force them to drill on these leases, regardless of the profitability of doing so. Before they can seek new leases. Seeing how the GOP usually opposes such government control on business I think it makes perfect sense the would not be for this bill.

 

[Alpha1]

can someone from the obstructionist republican party explain why their representatives voted against the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands bill?

The bill won a 244-173 majority, but still failed because it did not get a two-thirds margin under rules requiring a supermajority vote.

Democratic leaders appeared to choose the unusual process because it allowed them to deny Republicans a vote on opening up new offshore areas for drilling.

Democrats pointed out that any new offshore leasing – sought by the administration, most Republicans and some Democrats – would not produce oil for a decade or so and therefore would not effect today's $4-plus per gallon gasoline prices. ............IRRELEVANT

But with voters so angry over gas prices, Democrats felt the need to burnish their pro-drilling credentials in the face of unrelenting GOP pressure to open up the Outer Continental Shelf to oil exploration.
Perception more important than reallity

It said a Democratic provision requiring oil and gas companies to develop on already leased lands before obtaining new leases would curb future U.S. production.

"By blocking some firms from competing for new leases, this legislation would further increase gasoline prices that already exceed $4 per gallon," the White House said in a statement.

Democrats are scrambling to appear pro-drilling – hence the "Drill Act" title for Thursday's bill – even as leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., are dead set against reversing the drilling bans.

Create a false appearance? Standard Dim. tactic

 

[TheStripey1]

This bill probably prevents new leases from being offered.
Democrats are trying to destroy the middle-class.

and how, pray tell, would a bill forcing the oil companies to drill on the land they already have leases for, destroy the middle class?

explain using all the appropriate LINKS you have to support your case...

Sounds to me like this bill was going to force them to drill on these leases, regardless of the profitability of doing so. Before they can seek new leases. Seeing how the GOP usually opposes such government control on business I think it makes perfect sense the would not be for this bill.

well, the oil companies sought those leases before, if there wasn't any oil on them, why did they want them? pure speculation?

 

[Wow]

and how, pray tell, would a bill forcing the oil companies to drill on the land they already have leases for, destroy the middle class?

explain using all the appropriate LINKS you have to support your case...



well, the oil companies sought those leases before, if there wasn't any oil on them, why did they want them? pure speculation?

One obvious misunderstanding here is that most of these leases have been drilled for NATURAL gas, not oil.

Not all land leases are for drilling for oil.


I'm speculating that the Democrat's bill included no more land will be leased.
Democrats have been blocking energy production in the US for over 40 years.
It's no secret.

 

[Ravi]

So you want the government to decide that ?

No, that would probably be a very bad idea.

 

[Ravi]

well, the oil companies sought those leases before, if there wasn't any oil on them, why did they want them? pure speculation?

I don't think they actually know, nor does the government. They think it will pay off, so they lease the land and then after exploring it they decide if it is worth it or not.

But really, I'm just guessing.

 

[Care4all]

If we lease ALL OF OUR LAND to the oil companies and the BIG oil companies continue to not drill on it because it is easier for them to drill for oil in Iraq than in Gulf areas or Alaska, then all we are doing is making things MUCH WORSE for us...they will own all of our oil reserve leases and keep the oil from being drilled by someone else who does not have the contract to drill oil out of Iraq EASILY out of the sand for the next 30 years...

we should NOT lease to them without some kind of assurance they are not taking these leases just to prevent some other oil company from drilling there....or in other words to HOLD OIL off the market...which it appears that this is EXACTLY what they are doing.

I am uncertain how the leases should be writen to assure something like this, but I know it can be done somehow, and should be done somehow, to protect us from this happening with our land and our leases to drill....

Big oil signed leases for MILLIONS of acres of offshore drilling on the continental shelf 2 years ago that was opened up by Congress for them, and these Big Oil Companies in the last 2 years have NOT EVEN sent so much as a boat in to the area to analize the oil content is what i heard on C-span.... they are sitting on the leases...preventing others from drilling there so that the price of oil stays high imo....

 

[Ravi]

That's a good point, Care. If that is true, I'm almost tempted to give them the lease...if it means it won't be drilled.

Though if it's true, it means the oil companies are predatory...not that that surprises me given their continued record breaking profits.

Either way, we are being screwed, no?