Isn't it obvious that the Anti-Drilling Democrats are Pro-BIG OIL?

I can't understand how people can claim they are anti-drilling and anti-BIG OIL.





The two positions are oppositional.





BIG OIL makes HUGE profits while supplies are low which is why BIG OIL has leases that they are not drilling on now.





By opening more areas for drilling and forcing companies to drill on leases that they own or give up those leases without refunds the oil supply is increased.





As supplies go up price comes down and BIG OIL makes less money.





All this is really obvious and very simple logic.





Obviously anyone opposed to drilling is helping BIG OIL keep prices and profits high.





Obviously the Democrats, Obama, Pelosi and Reid are Pro-OIL which is why they are refusing to vote on oil drilling.





Why is this hard to understand? Sure these hypocrites are saying one thing, but, their actions are supporting BIG OIL's efforts to keep prices high and supplies low.Isn't it obvious that the Anti-Drilling Democrats are Pro-BIG OIL?
It's VERY obvious. If you don't want to drill, you HAVE to be for big oil It only makes sense. Liberals talk out of both sides of their mouths. ';Do as I say, not as I do'; type folks.Isn't it obvious that the Anti-Drilling Democrats are Pro-BIG OIL?
To many chiefs and not enough indians! Does anyone actually know anything about the process of drilling for oil? I guarantee the crap you hear on the news about all the available land that big oil has not used yet is a crock. Oil companies know where the oil is. It's not like they can just go drill a hole anywhere and find oil. They have already recovered most of the available oil from these leases. They need to drill in new locations to get more oil. Period.





So to all of you against drilling, enjoy your car and power to your house.






Perhaps I'm missing something, but the whole ';to drill or not to drill'; question could be rendered void if Americans stopped driving stupidly large engined SUV's and cars, that have the fuel consumption of a 747, the acceleration of a glacier and couldn't pull the skin off a custard. What's the point of a having 4 or 5 litre engine if it isn't doing anything other than guzzle fuel? Surely smaller vehicles using say,a fuel efficient 2 litre enginethat gives better performace would be preferable all round?
Big oil is a natural monopoly that will make large profits no matter what the price is. Beyond that because it is a natural monopoly the laws of supply and demand don't apply in the same way.





Further more, the rational way to promote conservation is to keep a price high.
I see what your tying to say but the only problem is ';BIG OIL'; doesn't set the price off a barrel of oil. The one reason I can see is that the more the oil companies make the more taxes they pay, witch mean the more the three stooges will be able to spend.
Why dont people get that, it may be under lease, BUT IF THERE WAS OIL to be had there, DONT YOU THINK THEY WOULD BE GETTING IT?





Or perhaps because of all the RED TAPE the LIBS have put into place to go after that leased land?





Just because its leased doesnt mean it will produce.





Marcia, your a sheeple. join us in the real world and break the Obot assimilation
Yes...I, too, cannot wait to spend billions of dollars to shave off 3 cents at the pump. Your logic, and the logic behind drilling...is, in fact, illogical.
They listen to Pelosi and her ridiculous excuses, like Oil companies should use their existing leases. They DO! Thats why there are oil rigs in the Gulf and anywhere else in the U.S where there is enough oil for a well.





And it's not so much about the price of oil as it is not buying foreign oil. For every million barrels a day of our own oil we can produce, is that much less we have to buy from the mid east. And it will reduce prices at the pump. That's simple supply and demand economics. Pelosi shouldn't be guessing at a price of 3 cents.





Oil is going back up due to such a tight supply (not shortage) so I do expect the ban to be lifted soon.





Earlier this year, Goldman Sachs equity analyst Arjun Murti predicted oil prices would spike to between $150-$200 before the end of 2009 due to his view of rising global demand and faltering supply.
No. Why? Because BIG OIL has tens of thousands of unexploited acres under lease. If they wanted to drill more sites...they could start at any moment.





Why don't people get that?
I do know they're mentally challenged.
The only thing that is OBVIOUS is that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
RANT
Your ';logic'; is illogical. Opening new drilling opportunities does not force an company to drill there or anywhere else. There is no shortage at the moment and not real shortage in the near future. Offshore drilling would open basically free areas for drilling as opposed to leased areas with no more assurance that the new areas would even produce oil. The cost would remain high because of the enormous cost of drilling under the ocean. Big oil companies are salivating over the idea that they might some day be able to explore where nobody owns the land, nobody knows for sure what is there, and they can make even more profits than they already are.