|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
It's T. Boone... T-bone is either a good steak or Clifford the big red dogs friend. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,208
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,208 |
T. Bone - T. Boone................. Either way, it still sounds like a good idea! 
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 164
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 164 |
Pit... You may find some interesting info at www.peakoil.com and www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net . In my opinion, I don't think even offshore drilling can save the economy now. We need to increase public transporation and nuclear energy asap. A major lifestyle change is in the near future IMO. Good investment is in railroads IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,208
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,208 |
Yes, I agree with you there as well. I've posted before about how far behind we are in high speed rail capacity. Just an East Coast and West Coast high speed rail sytem would vastly create a situation where much fuel could be saved.
Many of our cities "mass transit systems" are in dissaray and underfunded. This nation will be going through many changes and at a rapid pace no matter who is elected. The more time that passes, the more people will realise this IMO
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253 |
Sheesh Pit, I know you are a Bush hater but I didn't think even you could figure out a way to blame him for the Democrats blocking Drilling,and Refinerys, Nuke Plants.The Repub come up with a bill to open up Drilling ect. The Dems block it. And its Bushmans fault. You are amazing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,208
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,208 |
It's pretty basic Duty.
I'm not "blaming him". But my question is a basic one. This "presidential ban on drilling" has been in place for ten years.
My point was, why has it taken OVER seven and a half years as president to do this? I mean if he were so focused on this issue, he has had this long to do this.
You see, he has "finaly" done it. But do you seriously expect people to believe that he was "so intent on accomplishing this" if it has taken him over seven and a half years to do it?
Like I said, better late than never. And I agree with his move. But after taking him more than seven and a half years to do so? It looks like a political stunt during an election year far more than anything else. Which both parties do.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
So, even when you have to admit you agree with something Bush does, you still have to come up with some way to let your hatred through and slam him for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
Quote:
I'm not "blaming him".
Other than this statement, your entire post is blaming him.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Truth is that the American people weren't clamoring for it. They are now clamoring for it and he listened. The democrats are putting up blocks to keep from them doing their part to ease the burden on the American people. Of course, they claim that the major cause is speculators. They still reject the idea that the cost of a commodity is inversely proportional to it's supply. Low supply (85 million barrels per day) versus higher demand (87.5 million barrels per day).
If we manage to produce 2.5 million barrels per day, we get the supply of oil to equal the demand for it. Of course, producing a bit more than that creates a surplus of fuel and would eventually drive prices down.
The way that I see it, they are hell-bent on not drilling for the oil and are pushing an agenda towards alternative sources.
While developing those alternative sources is a good idea, it should be free markets that push that development, not politicians trying to push an agenda. If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi want to develop these sources of energy, they need to invest their time in it. Leaving Congress and starting their own R & D companies would be a good start. However, I don't think either of them has enough sincerity to give up their current powerful gigs. Also, it is so much easier to take graft from environmentalist organizations (and pretend to care in their cause) than it would be to put their money (and in some cases, they have substantial amounts of it) where their mouths are.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
I'm not "blaming him". But my question is a basic one. This "presidential ban on drilling" has been in place for ten years.
I thought you, or someone else, said that the first Bush enacted it.
Oops. Fuzzy math on my part. My bad. Carry on.
Last edited by archbolddawg; 07/19/08 02:51 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253 |
Even though Bush lifted the ban, it means nothing. Congress has to lift theirs. Bush just lifted the Ex ban to throw the ball into their court and to show even the slowest Americans that the Dems are NOT our friends. 79% of Americans want drilling.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
I have a feeling that the same people that voted GW twice,
agree with GW here. he will eventually lead you guys. stay the course. if it takes 100 years.
remember OIL IS THE ANSWER
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
I guess not trying to reduce oil prices while finding an alternative source is a bad idea in your eyes? Why am I not surprised?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
By calling on President Bush to release the strategic oil reserve, the Democrats are basically conceding the point that a greater supply will reduce the price at the pump, and yet they refuse to allow drilling where we know there are huge supplies ... the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, along with some huge formations in protected areas of the lower 48. They say offshore drilling is too risky environmentally, but existing rigs in the Gulf withstood Hurricane Katrina, and many other hurricanes with only minimal damage. They say ANWR is this pristine, beautiful Arctic wilderness when it is, in fact, a barren, uninhabitable, frozen wasteland.
Increasing supply will lower the price - that is an undeniable fact. But by announcing we are going to drill - even if the actual production is 3-5 years off - we will put a suppressing chill into the speculators market which is driving up the price of a barrel right now ... and causing all this pain at the pump. In the week following Bush rescinding the ban on drilling, the price per barrel went from $148 down to the mid-$120. If Congress will only act ... or should I say, if Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal) would only remove the obstructions to an up or down vote, the Congress would have the chance to help Americans with this growing economic threat, and, just coincidentally, raise their approval ratings out of the single-digits.
None of that precludes R&D in alternative fuels, but we have to get to work in the meantime, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not entirely informed on the subject...but then again I don't think many on this board are, either. As far as I've read, the oil companies aren't as handcuffed as it's made out to be -- they do currently have access to drill in parts of the Outer Continental Shelf. They just don't. Why? You said it yourself... Quote:
Increasing supply will lower the price - that is an undeniable fact.
Does anyone think the oil industry wants lower prices?  I might be more in tune to this idea if oil companies were drilling in the federal lands that they currently allowed to.
Personally, I think it's foolish to turn the debate into drill vs. shouldn't drill. I feel the discussion should include public transportation. I should be sick of hearing those two words.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Quote:
Does anyone think the oil industry wants lower prices?
Oil companies profit margin remains at around 9% no matter the price per barrel. For perspective, consider the fact that Phamaceutical Companies are at about 26% profit and Insurance companies are at 18%. But do we villify them and refer to them as "Big Pharmaceuticals" or "Big Insurance"? The oil companies provide a necessary product at a reasonable price based on the cost of their particular commodity. Their profits are not "obscene" when compared to other industry sectors, and their risk is considerable when you consider their costs for R&D, the finding, extracting, and refining of their product.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Also, what people conveniently forget is that "big oil" has been investigated over and over and over for collusion and or price fixing, etc. And never has anyone found a problem.
Then, realize that if they were able to produce gas cheaper, don't you think 1 company would? They'd put the others out of business. That nasty "free market" thing.
THEN add on the fact that our fed. gov't. makes twice as much per gallon as the oil companies. Why don't we investigate gov't.?
Next, for those that are blaming Bush and Cheney, stop and realize that oil prices remained fairly stable during the first 6 years of this administration, but started rising when the dems took over congress............Is it the dems. fault? Heavens no. Thinking/saying that is just as ludicrous as thinking/saying that Bush is responsible.
People forget that there is a WORLD market for oil - not just an american market.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
But do we villify them and refer to them as "Big Pharmaceuticals" or "Big Insurance"?
I most certainly do.
In fact, I think the insurance industry is one of the most vile things in America today. Look no further than the phrase "pre-existing condition" to see how sick these people are and how little they care about you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,639
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,639 |
Quote:
Even though Bush lifted the ban, it means nothing. Congress has to lift theirs. Bush just lifted the Ex ban to throw the ball into their court and to show even the slowest Americans that the Dems are NOT our friends. 79% of Americans want drilling.
Curious, does anyone know who initially signed into Law the ban on off shore drilling? Must be an evil liberal, right? 
"Team Chemistry No Match for Team Biology" (Onion Sports Headline)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
Quote:
Curious, does anyone know who initially signed into Law the ban on off shore drilling? Must be an evil liberal, right?
There was and is a lot of liberal support for the ban. I don't think the intentions were evil, just misguided.....or were you just using this as an opportunity to play the liberal victim card? 
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,208
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,208 |
Quote:
Truth is that the American people weren't clamoring for it. They are now clamoring for it and he listened.
Which is exactly the point I was making all along. And as per usual, none of "the usual suspects" actually addressed the question, accept you.
Thank you -BTW
And I fully understand that the Dems are setting roadblocks and disagree with them for doing that.
But I believe you are correct. See, it was asserted that "Bush has been trying to increase drilling from day 1"
You see, I don't try to dig a hole to plant a tree with a tablespoon if I have a perfectly functional spade shovel to do the job with. So my question was simply this.................
"If he were trying so hard from day 1 to expend drilling, why did it take him over seven and a half years to pull the presidential moritorium?"
I stated that I agreed with him doing it. But I dispute that he has used the "tools at his disposal" to do so until now. And you can see the drivel that has transpired until you FINALY actually addressed the question.
And Phil also has a great point that I have brought up before. As of now, the oil companies have "tens of thousands of acres" of leases "they paid for" and are not drilling there currently. Why haven't they?
Sound business practice dictates that you don't "lease land" without using it. Unless of course it is "more profitable" to monopolize the drilling sites to control the flow of oil which will directly impact the price of that commodity.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,208
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,208 |
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not "blaming him". But my question is a basic one. This "presidential ban on drilling" has been in place for ten years.
I thought you, or someone else, said that the first Bush enacted it.
Oops. Fuzzy math on my part. My bad. Carry on.
I didn't, but somebody may have. But you are right,to a point.
Quote:
The decision to extend the moratorium on oil drilling, which was first imposed by President Bush in June 1990, was expected, even though the current ban does not expire until 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9806/12/offshore.drilling.pm/index.html
And from the same article
President Clinton signed an order Friday extending a ban on most offshore oil drilling for 10 years and permanently protecting national marine sanctuaries from oil and gas drilling.
So it was "imposed" by his dad and further extended by Clinton. And it could have been ended since 2002 from my understanding.
So there's enough blame to go round. If someone would look at it objectively.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,639
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,639 |
Quote:
Quote:
Curious, does anyone know who initially signed into Law the ban on off shore drilling? Must be an evil liberal, right?
There was and is a lot of liberal support for the ban. I don't think the intentions were evil, just misguided.....or were you just using this as an opportunity to play the liberal victim card?
Funny, I can't seem to find that card in my wallet. Must have gotten lost in the mail with all those Bush blanket-rationalization cards.
There was also a good bit of conservative support. Namely those associated with big (foreign) oil. The Saudis were all for the ban. Still are but the weather has changed.
"Team Chemistry No Match for Team Biology" (Onion Sports Headline)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Phiil raises a valid point that you try to reinforce only if you ignore what the replies were to you when you brought up this half truth before and was explained to you in detail.
The oil companies aren't drilling in those leased areas for the simple reason that by the time the red tape and regulations that are unnecessarily cumbersome were gone through, the leases would have expired. That has been pointed out repeatedly, yet you ignore it and accept the Dems assertions without looking for the answer.
As for Bush trying since "day 1", he has REPEATEDLY addressed this issue throught his presidency in many speeches, urging the lift of drilling. It has been ignored the opposition. Since things have gotten as bad as it has with no relief in sight, he made a decision to force the issue. I'm not sure how that's a bad thing. You say open dialogue and communication is vital to success. Does that only work with our enemies and not within our country? That's what Bush tried to do. When it failed and things became like they are now, he acted. No one actuall knew that China and other developing countries demands for oil would skyrocket as they did.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
Let me get this straight...Bush had the power to do what he did, his entire presidency...correct? The only problem he's facing now is congress....correct? So, why wouldn't he have done this when Reps had control of congress? I'm asking in all seriousness!
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Because the Repulicans had the majority, but not enough votes to life the ban in Congress. That's why in many, many addresses, Bush continued to urge allowing drilling for years. He never succeeded in getting them to.
Now that the situation has gotten to this poing and the blame has been placed by the Democrats, this move does two things. It forces the Dems to either do what's right for the country or have to show that they don't care about what's best for the country and block the move. It also forces the issue that is on every person's mind in the country and puts it one step closer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
Thanks.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not overly informed about this subject (shocking...I know). I'll also admit that I am sorely disappointed by the job that the dems have done since taking over congress.
I'm not sure what this drilling will accomplish, but something needs to be done about the prices of gas. If this will fix it, I hope it doesn't have long lasting effects that could cost us down the line.
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
I don't know what the long term effects will be, but the short term effect was a decrease in the price of a barrel of oil - and it STILL isn't okayed to drill. Just the idea that the u.s. might.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
I don't know what congress' agenda is, but the long term effects, economical and environmental, should be measured before we drill. Although, at this point, I'm about ready to say to hell with it...Even if it means the worst possible outcome, I can't afford to keep paying $4
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
it's believed that there is enough oil to supply the U.S. for 30 years. If that is the case, then prices would plummet. This, along with research for alternatives, would ease the gas prices to a manageable level until alternatives could be found.
The minute that Congress would approve the drilling, prices would drop because the Arabs would start producing more so they could get what profits they can until the U.S. started taking care of themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253 |
Quote:
it's believed that there is enough oil to supply the U.S. for 30 years. If that is the case, then prices would plummet. This, along with research for alternatives, would ease the gas prices to a manageable level until alternatives could be found.
The minute that Congress would approve the drilling, prices would drop because the Arabs would start producing more so they could get what profits they can until the U.S. started taking care of themselves.
Thats what I see happening too Coach. The thing is, we have to make sure those lunkheads in Congress let us keep this oil for ourselves. Not sell it to China or Japan just for a better price. We also need Nuke Power and Refinerys. Somebody has to stand up to these crooks. Thats why I was hoping for Mitt R to be the GOP's electee.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
The minute that Congress would approve the drilling, prices would drop because the Arabs would start producing more so they could get what profits they can until the U.S. started taking care of themselves.
And that's why I can see prices going UP until we would get our own usable oil supply. 5 to 10 years is a long time at $6/gallon.
I'm all for supporting ourselves, though, so I hope it passes.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
"If he were trying so hard from day 1 to expend drilling, why did it take him over seven and a half years to pull the presidential moritorium?"
Someone suggested that?
Even if he had, oil prices 7.5 years ago was around $27. Oil companies in the USA would lose money to pump it out of the ground at those prices. Oilfield workers don't get paid a low wage. To make money at those prices they'd have to hire a lot of Mexican workers or let the Arabs do it. Even Russia, with huge reserves, wasn't pumping it out of the ground because it wasn't worth it to them.
Quote:
And Phil also has a great point that I have brought up before. As of now, the oil companies have "tens of thousands of acres" of leases "they paid for" and are not drilling there currently. Why haven't they?
I can think of a number of reasons.
1. They haven't actually performed the geological analysis of the leased areas yet.
2. They have performed geological analysis and have determined that little or no oil has been found on that leased land.
3. Their ability to drill might be under litigation from environmental groups. While ANWR isn't currently leased, ANWR is an example. The geological analysis has already been there but litigation is keeping them from drilling there.
4. As for drilling off-shore, the moratoriums have been in place to keep them from drilling there. The president has lifted the one imposed by his father. The democratic Congress also imposed a moratorium on off-shore drilling, dating from 1981.
Actually, a great deal of land is leased in the Western United States that isn't "used" except for grazing. Often, those are subleased from the original leasee.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
It has been mentioned that it would take that long, but I've also heard that timeframe labeled as ridiculous and that we could begin drilling in months once it passes.
I wonder about prices going up, though. IMO, it's better to sell what you can now for 90 a barrel than to sit on it and mete it out with a thinble and be stuck with it at 50-60 a barrel once U.S. demand for it stops because we're self sufficient.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Phil raises a valid point
When did this happen? I don't think I've seen that ever! Did I miss it?
Quote:
The oil companies aren't drilling in those leased areas for the simple reason that by the time the red tape and regulations that are unnecessarily cumbersome were gone through, the leases would have expired.
That isn't really true. It doesn't make a lot of sense for a company to lease land that they know is just tied up in red-tape. I think it's more of a delay due to lawsuits, getting the personnel to the various sites to do thier surveys and analysis of them and even some instances that the value of the product was not deemed worth spending the resources (at this time) to recover.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
but the long term effects, economical and environmental, should be measured before we drill.
The environmental effects should be ignored at this point. Concern about the environmental effects are what have gotten us into this mess.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Clearing the moratorium on drilling would ease oil prices significantly. Of course, it should be backed by legislation that the US reserves the exclusive right to drill for oil within 200 miles of our coastlines and furthermore reserves the right to expand that exclusive right to beyond 250 miles. Where national boundaries exist within this exclusive area, the distance between the US and the other nation shall be determined to be split exactly at half, unless the other nation makes no explicit and exclusive right to the resources on their shores. In instances where the other nation makes no such claim, the U.S. reserves the right to drill up to their beaches. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Actually, it is true. When the land was leased, it was believed the heavy restrictions would be eased.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
It has been mentioned that it would take that long, but I've also heard that timeframe labeled as ridiculous and that we could begin drilling in months once it passes.
Exactly right. Much of the areas that are now off-limits due to the moratorium have already been analyzed and oil is known to be located there. In some instances, the rigging was put in place to drill (and in some cases, the rigs were producing) but the moratorium was put into effect. It's barely a matter of inspecting some of the rigs and firing them up. Some of them could be producing in within a few weeks or a month, at most.
Quote:
I wonder about prices going up, though. IMO, it's better to sell what you can now for 90 a barrel than to sit on it and mete it out with a thinble and be stuck with it at 50-60 a barrel once U.S. demand for it stops because we're self sufficient.
The price would immediately drop. That would have an immediate impact on OPEC because these nations (which it has been rightfully pointed out are not particularly friendly to the US) would lose funds. With less income from oil, they would be less likely to be able to continue to support the pillars of terrorism. That isn't to say that these governments directly support terrorism, but that elements within them certainly do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Perhaps, but I don't buy into that completely. I think that there are a number of factors that are contributing to the problem.
Just the same, it could be one element to the problem. I wonder how long the typical lease for exploration of oil using this type of land lease is granted.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Bush lifts ban on oil drilling
|
|
