PressCoverage

Oops...... Jeb Bush, himself... Once again, a poster bloviates a point as if fact, but when you just dig deeper.... You quickly realize: Yup, more bullshyt...


http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Bush...h-No-Drill.htm

Jeb Bush to Bush administration: No new drilling in Gulf off Florida AP 26jan01

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Gov. Jeb Bush has told his brother's new administration not to open up Florida's Gulf Coast to more offshore oil and gas drilling -- a message President Bush already has said he will heed.

The president advocates increased energy exploration in the United States, but he said in a pre-inauguration interview with The Associated Press that he would support governors who want drilling banned off their coastlines.

BelichickFan

It's more Democrats than Republicans but it's not just Democrats. Regardless - let's see Mr. Change declare that he will mandate exploration and drilling for all sources of new oil within 100 days of inauguration - if he guaranteed that, I might actually vote for him.

otis p. driftwood

Just for the record, that bit about Jeb has been mentioned, and he's been criticized (I know he has, one of the voices was my own).

It doesn't change this, that it's more often Democrats.

__________________
Questions are a burden
and answers a prison
for oneself.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Real World

The way it tends to work is that pols from coastal states, vote against offshore drilling, while land locked states do not.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Little_Richard

Correct me if I am wrong, my friend. But if I am not mistaken, during the first six years of the Bush administration the congress was in the majority of the Republicans. In fact, the majority they held in the house was quite large.

And, of course, with the republican president in the White House, there certainly would not have been any veto of an Anwar drilling bill.

In the senate, while not as large of a majority, still a majority, enough to get the bill passed.

That all being the case, it is the republicans who failed, not the democrats. They had total control of all of the necessary parts to get it done, and they didnt.

In the meantime, it appears as if the Anwar oil project would be a total waste, anyway, considering that the amount of oil we would obtain is minimal aind it is estimated at anywhere from 5-10 years, or more, before it would even be operational and the only ones to gain from it would be the fat cats in the oil industry and some big wigs in Alaska. The people would save, about a nickel a gallon, if even that much.

The real oil deposits are right here at home, in the contiguous 48, in North Dakota, in the Bakken Oil reserves.....

This thing is absolutely huge!"

That's what I was told after asking about the Bakken formation. And trust me, the oil boom in North Dakota is far from over.

On April 10, 2008, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) released their field report about the Bakken. The formation stretches across North Dakota, Montana and Saskatchewan. The report estimates that 3.65 billion barrels of oil can be recovered from the Bakken formation.

According to the USGS, "This is the largest oil accumulation in the lower 48 states. It is also the largest continuous type of oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS."

Put it this way: The last time the USGS released an assessment was in 1995 and announced that only 151 million barrels of oil can be recovered.

In other words, the latest assessment is 25 times greater than previous estimates!

Let's break down the April 10th report for a second.

http://www.energyandcapital.com/arti...-formation/578


North Dakota Tax Incentives for New Bakken Oil Wells

North Dakota has passed legislation aimed at increasing new investments in oil drilling in the Bakken geologic formation, a well known oil reserve located in the western portion of North Dakota and crossing into parts of Montana and Canada. This new legislation offers temporary state tax incentives for new wells drilled in the Bakken formation area, and is expected to increase investments in new oil wells over the designated time span for the tax incentives and bring about a positive impact on North Dakota's economy.

The Bakken formation is a part of the Williston Basin, which lies beneath areas of eastern Montana, northwestern South Dakota and adjoining parts of Canada as well as a majority of North Dakota. The Bakken Formation is a lucrative producing area for oil wells, and progressive oil drilling methods such as horizontal drilling have yielded increased production in the area and prompted experts to reevaluate and increase the outlook for expected recoverable reserves there.

http://www.articleblast.com/Laws_and...ken_Oil_Wells/

And there is a lot more.

otis p. driftwood

There. Fixed it for you, NEM.

__________________
Questions are a burden
and answers a prison
for oneself.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Little_Richard

I am not really sure what you are talking about, but you used my name in your quote and I never typed such a thing or posted such a thing. And in it you are accusing me of something and I didnt even post it. I do believe what you have done is illegal in this forum and ground for banning.

Therefore I suggest that any mod should act upon your violation immediately.

You really do have a severe phobia as I have noted. Perhaps you should seek professional help.

otis p. driftwood

What name? Are you admitting you're Mike Allen?

__________________
Questions are a burden
and answers a prison
for oneself.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Little_Richard

You said that quote was by Little Richard, which is my name, when in fat I never posted that. You posted it and you made it seem as if I, Little Richard, posted it.

It's not very difficult to do as you can see above as I have changed your post to make it look like someone else quoted it, which of course is not true because that person was banned and does not have the ability to post. Unlike what you did which is a complete forum violation and you lmust receive punishment in the form of banning. You are no better than anyone else and a rule violation is a rule violation and yours is of a much more serious nature because you passed off something that you wrote as coming from someone else. That is a total fabrication and forum violation.

And when you did it, and used my screen name of Little Richard, you committed what is the equivelant of a forum felony by using another posters name in a quote that he didnt make. You need to be punished for that violation and I am sure the mods will not allow it to continue, especially your false accusations which obviously demonstrate a deep rooted problem that you need to attend to.

otis p. driftwood

Uh huh. Guess what, it happens every day...people change other people's posts and say "fixed it for you". It's a common occurrence and all in good fun.

But if you really feel strongly, by all means contact Shmessy or PatsNutme.

It's funny...it's a "forum felony" when I do it, but when you do it...there's no problem? What a too faced bufoon.

__________________
Questions are a burden
and answers a prison
for oneself.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.