Who will offshore drilling REALLY benefit? The Oil Companies?

Will it truly reduce our gas rates or just like the CBC-Corrupt Bast@rd$ Club/VECO with Senator Ben Stevens in their pocket?


What is up with the Congress talks even after the lights %26amp; cameras are off? Back room decisions?





Just another way to rip off the people? Please give ur thoughts %26amp; links/sources if you have.Who will offshore drilling REALLY benefit? The Oil Companies?
The big scam here is that the bills which Republicans have brought to the Senate are not for drilling at all...





You have to watch what they're saying on the Senate floor... not what other people on Yahoo are saying.





They want to open up additional protected lands for ';exploration';... There are no plans to drill at all.





Basicly, the Republicans want to flip some real estate while Bush is still in office...Who will offshore drilling REALLY benefit? The Oil Companies?
If they were concerned with benefitting us, they would drill in already approved locations, and develop more refineries. They might even halve their profits, still make a small fortune compared with any middle-class American, and bring down the price at the pump. They will not do that because it is in their interests to inflate the cost of gas to achieve permission to drill offshore.



I have no doubt that it's a package that Bush has offered as a gift to his buds before exiting office like Green P says. The people may receive some of the benefit in prices, but the Old Boys are going to do their best to try to grab as much as they can before the gates close!!


I'm going to extend this in another question...
They're in the business of providing oil so it will benefit them. It will also benefit consumers when the supply of oil on the world market increases. If states are allowed to drill off their coasts they wil share in 34% of the revenue so they will also benefit.
You're right. Drilling HERE in our own country instead of buying oil from Middle Eastern countries is a WAY better idea. Just don't complain when Obama is elected in November and gas is close to $10 a gallon by mid 2010.
Natural gas prices will skyrocket within 5-8 years if the drilling is not done. The demand for oil keeps increasing and the demand is increasing the demand for natural gas.
It will benefit the citizens of this country who have to drive to work every day. If that means the oil companies turn a profit, then so be it.
Bush's own Energy Information Administration has said that drilling the OCS will have no significant effect on production or prices until 2030.
The oil companies are pushing hard for it and their business is to make money and increase profits. They are not charitable organizations.
the democratic Congress and the democratic senators don't care about America .just the lining their pockets with stock money most likely they own foreign stock in oil
Green Pagan, I'd like to see any data/links you have on this. Please include some so I can read on it.
If supply goes up and demand falls, we all pay less.
It will benefit the American people.
Letting them drill would help ALL of us.





The real question is why is Pelosi and Ried trying to PREVENT us from being energy independent.





Maybe a well respected environmentalist is someone we should listen to.





Like Patrick Moore.. CO Founder of Greenpeace!


http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/th鈥?/a>


The Rise of Eco-Extremism


Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or ';liberal'; approach to ecology and the new ';zero-tolerance'; attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former ';enemies'; or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of ';sustainable development'; and took a strong ';anti-development'; stance.





Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.





These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:





路 It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a ';cancer'; on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be ';good'; if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.





路 It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and ';unnatural'. The Sierra Club's recent book, ';Clearcut: the Tradgedy of Industrial Forestry';, is an excellent example of this perspective. ';Western industrial society'; is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word ';Nature'; is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to ';find our place'; in the world through ';shamanic journeying'; and ';swaying with the trees';. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.





路 It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are critisized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no ';allegiance'; to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?





路 It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to ';free trade'; but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each ';bioregion'; should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it's too cold to grow bananas - - too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is adsurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.





路 It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike ';competition'; and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are sucessful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.





路 It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too ';human-centered';. In the name of ';speaking for the trees and other species'; we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The ';planetary police'; would ';answer to no one but Mother Earth herself';.