By-Tor.com

If you made that pic elf, its pretty awesome.

Nope. I cannot tell a lie (at least not at the moment). I stole the pic.

awip2062 wrote:Siggs, thanks for posting that.

Rock on t. (((((get well soon)))))

ElfDude wrote:I'm glad our oil problems have no been solved for us.

"We could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and -- and -- and getting regular tune-ups, you can actually save just as much." -- B.H. Obama

So then, are we going to have mandated tire-inflation road checks? Or is the government going to start paying for our tune-ups because ya know, not everyone can afford them yearly.

It was a dumb thing to say. Almost as dumb as his more recent statement that he'd like to force the oil companies to send out a $1000 check to all taxpayers.

If you count our shale, we've got four Saudi Arabias worth of energy here in our own country. Most Americans want access to it.

Today Nancy Pelosi denied one hundred Republican congressmen who had signed up for 5 minutes each to talk about oil their chance by shutting down congress... shutting down the C-Span cameras, ordering the lights off, etc. The Republicans said they weren't leaving because drilling needs to be discussed and voted on.

I'm baffled as to why the Democrat leadership is so eager to be the perceived "bad guys" on this issue, especially during an election year.

Pelosi shut down Congress?

What reason did she give?

I'm baffled as to why the Democrat leadership is so eager to be the perceived "bad guys" on this issue, especially during an election year.

I think they think they are trying to do the right thing, election or not. That 60 million acres of land already allocated for drilling, but not being used. That seems to be the more confusing question. Why not get oil from there before overturning the law preserving certain areas? The oil is there, the land is already marked for drilling. What is the hold-up? Drill! Drill! Drill! As Cyg might say
Then, when those rivers of oil have been used, we discuss ripping into places that we thought, at one point, should be reserved. Anybody shed any light on that for me?

If we have land designated for drilling, with oil under, then YES by all means we should be drilling there. That's a no-brainer, I think. I'm with ya, BBO!

Shoot... I had it explained to me at a time when I couldn't pay close attention. And now I don't remember the answer. There is an answer though. And at the time I seem to remember thinking, "Oh... okay..."
Stupid brain.

ElfDude wrote:Shoot... I had it explained to me at a time when I couldn't pay close attention. And now I don't remember the answer. There is an answer though. And at the time I seem to remember thinking, "Oh... okay..."
Stupid brain.

You got a crayon up yer nose there Homer????

"Extended warranty?! How can I lose?!"

!!!

It was pointed out to me that the oil companies are not drilling in already leased land for a variety of reasons. These reasons include lack of cost effective accessibility, wetland designations which prohibit intrusion, lack of proper wilderness zoning to allow drilling.

In fact, though the government has leased much land for drilling, there are restrictions that don't allow drilling in over 50% of these lands. Also, after speculation, much of this leased land isn't worth drilling on.

One thing the drill haters aren't mentioning is that the leased land was leased on speculation, prior to investigating whether it was drillable. That was the only way oil companies could secure the land before special interest groups got involved. Now, these special interest groups are complaining that they aren't drilling on land they have already leased.

LOL!