- BIG NEWS:
- Citibank
- |
- The Fed
- |
- Financial Crisis
- |
- Banks
- |
GOP Follows the Money... All the Way to Big Oil
Read More:
Big Oil, Dscc, Exxon, Exxon Mobil, Exxon Profits, Oil, Oil Companies, Republicans, Senate,
Business News
Exxon Mobil announced a staggering $11.7 billion in second quarter profits today, the largest quarterly profits of any corporation in history, and the latest in a string of record-shattering profit announcements from the industry. Record-high oil prices may be squeezing Americans at the pump, but it's obviously good business for the oil companies. Less obvious, but just as harmful to consumers, is just what good business it is for the Republican Party.
Over the past few years, Republicans in Congress and the oil companies have assembled a mutually beneficial money machine. Big Oil pumps millions into the campaign coffers of Republican Senators. Those Senators shower the industry with billions in big tax breaks. Big Oil makes record profits, and in turn, sends millions more back into Republican campaigns. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. Everyone wins except for average Americans who find themselves paying record high gas prices and wondering why Washington can't seem to do anything about it.
Since taking control of the Senate by a narrow one-vote margin in January of 2007, Democrats have tried repeatedly to break the oil industry's stranglehold on public policy and have repeatedly been stymied by Republican filibusters. For example, last June, Democrats tried to pass legislation rolling back billions in tax breaks President Bush and the Republican Congress had given to the oil companies, but couldn't find enough Republicans to join them to reach the 60-vote threshold to break a filibuster. Then in December, Democrats tried again to repeal $13 billion in special oil and gas industry tax breaks to fund tax incentives for renewable energy and again were stopped by a Republican filibuster.
Republicans have been loudly bemoaning high gas prices as of late, but, not surprisingly, the only proposals they offer are the same ones backed by the oil companies. And then when they have a chance to actually lower the price of gas, they revert to their same old ways. Last Friday, Democrats in the Senate brought up a bill to lower gas prices by cracking down on oil speculators -- who experts say have needlessly driven up the price of oil -- and could only muster 50 votes, with nearly every Republican Senator voting to stop the bill from advancing.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee launched a new website today, www.BoughtByBigOil.com, with more on how each Republican Senator running for re-election has voted to back the oil companies while handsomely profiting from their largesse. Republican Senators with long histories of backing Big Oil will be sending up plenty of smokescreens to disguise their records during the 95 days left between now and the election, but for voters who want to know where they really stand, the old axiom still applies: Follow the money.
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
lrYLV467dz20gWnMBUDmmkk43wad%2FptF8SyP2eOu9glG25tq%2BZm8GT7bFZVIzbWPZjll4SWmVFhUy421V1HgGg%3D%3D
OHu5cU3xPOEl1FTeLoOhNxM9yXuxRJJtYcZA6kM%2B2ccGt9gYmoCTbuYqr5JFJHJUBpgVMEmEkv5UUBpgPNeEFA%3D%3D
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 4
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
During the 70s gas crunch there really was a shortage of gas. Many gas stations had no gas to sell. This gas hike is not due to a shortage. The proof is the availability of gas for all gas stations. Insiders are getting rich and they include oil companies and especially the oil speculators. If you follow that money you find why the government does not force oil down by dumping 50 million barrells on the market. A sudden dumping of federal reserve oil would make the government billions of dollars and burn the speculators who are betting on highly leveraged futures. The administration wants to burn the speculators because their personal symbiotic relationships with the oil manipulators.
The big three spend many billions to get better mileage. They all lost efficiency due to EPA rules that forced them to lower compression ratios. The big three were simply obeying the EPA laws while making what made them the most money, SUVs that most people wanted.
Big three bankruptcy is from corrupt administration that was in bed with the oil people and even outright refused to meet with the auto makers when they asked. GM can switch to efficient cars but needs two years advance warning that gas prices will be jacked up to 3 or 4 dollars a gallon. They follow market desire for efficient cars but are getting killed financially because the oil men running the administration have arranged for the oil prices to quickly quadruple without a shortage
Speculators would be in a stronger position then holfing Oil Contracts!
The Fedearl Reserve once spent would place the USA in a worse position and be cowed by the Offshore Traders with their DARK POOLS.
WatchTV: You state: "The big three spend many billions to get better mileage. They all lost efficiency due to EPA rules that forced them to lower compression ratios."
Um ... I have to question this. It is not my impression at all that any US auto manufacturers have been focusing on "getting better mileage." To the contrary, they appear to have been focusing on size and power (to the detriment of mileage).
To attribute their poor mileage record to "Environmental regulation" strikes me as an industry excuse.
I promise not to mention the 60+ MILLION acres already leased to the oil companies. They are not
DRILL-DRILL-DRILL - ing right now. For some inexplicable reason.
I promise not to mention the $$BILLIONS in ANNUAL taxpayer supported subsidies going to oil companies. They are not using that free money to DRILL-DRILL-DRILL on the leased land they have already received as a gift from the taxpayers. For some inexplicable reason.
I promise not to mention the oil refining capacity that is not being built by those oil companies that are receiving the BILLIONS of dollars in annual subsidies, thereby creating oil product shortages. For some inexplicable reason.
The oil companies RIGHT NOW have the authority to DRILL-DRILL-DRILL on the people's land, in the people's waters, and both on and off the Alaska coast. Yet, they are not doing it. For some inexplicable reason.
The oil companies, and the financial companies holding the futures rights to much of that oil, are not DRILL-DRIL
Which is, irony of ironies, because DRILL-DRIL
The ONLY reason the oil companies wants those leases is to rob the American people of their sovereign rights to that oil, and not to DRILL-DRILL-DRILL anything.
So, please don't mention the BIPARTISAN ALL ENERGY IS GOOD ENERGY Act.
Amen, Joe.
Were they stopped by a filibuster or by the threat of a filibuster? Democratic leadership should force the Republicans to actually carry out their filibuster and let the country see what they are doing? Instead, they just say, "Oh, you're threatening a filibuster? Well, we just won't try to pass that bill."
FLORIDA OFFSHORE DRILLING:
The state of Florida is no longer against offshore drilling due to the energy crisis the advances in new technology that make it environmentally safe. Katrina had a category 5 storm toppled oil rigs in the gulf, but not one drop of oil was spilled by OFFSHORE OIL RIGS! Any oil spillage you may have heard about would have been from onshore sources.
States with offshore drilling get the benefits of increased revenue. Also the 700,000 or more new jobs that would be generated by just offshore drilling alone would benefit the floundering U.S economy. The money would stay in the U.S. and people in the U.S. would get new jobs. And oil prices would go down.
There are places in the gulf where it would only take a year or less to tap into it. WHEN ANYONE TELLS YOU IT WOULD TAKE 10 YRS...THAT IS A BLANTANT LIE!!! Some of the oil will be short term, and PELOSI AND OBAMA WOULD PREFER YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT. What is really disgusting is when politicians try to hide these facts from the American people for political gain!
Take a walk on a Texas or Alaska Beach. You will need to carry a can of kerosene to clean the tar off your feet when your done. Is this what you want for Florida?
No oil spilled from oil rigs? That comment is either a based on a lack of research or is a blatant lie.
How about some photographic proof?
Take a look at
http://sky
Click on the image for a closeup. That oil slick looks like way more than a drop to me.
Why should we let them turn Florida and Cape Cod into a tarball just so they can sell the oil to China?
It wont take ten years? The US government says it will take ten years. Where do you get your info?
Alaska - oil tanker spill. Texas - Katrina on shore sources.
It will not take 10 yrs. That is propaganda.
I get my information C-span and from committee hearings and from the government. Also the Democrats that are pushing their new BIPARTISAN ENGERGY ACT with the Republicans but is not being brought to a vote by PELOSI. She would rather see the American people suffer, because it is all about POWER FOR HER, at our expense.
I've been to the gulf of Mexico, the beaches are pristine.
Your information is old and outdated..
Let me ask you a question..
well, here's a fact for you -- that offshore oil is a drop in the bucket
Lookie here, McCain 4th biggest receiver of money from BIG oil. These numbers probably dont even factor in this current race given McCain got 1.3 mil in June alone!
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R-TX) $2,126,025
Gramm, Phil (R-TX) $1,679,314
Cornyn, John (R-TX) $1,313,825
----------
Barton, Joe (R-TX) $1,246,411
Inhofe, James M (R-OK) $1,076,573
Young, Don (R-AK) $954,013
Nickles, Don (R-OK) $841,388
Domenici, Pete V (R-NM) $749,947
Giuliani, Rudolph W (R-NY) $749,408
DeLay, Tom (R-TX) $698,840
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $649,011
Santorum, Rick (R-PA) $619,878
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $612,244
McCrery, Jim (R-LA) $608,322
Burns, Conrad (R-MT) $605,386
Tauzin, Billy (R-LA) $597,186
Pearce, Steve (R-NM) $596,324
Bonilla, Henry (R-TX) $588,392
Cubin, Barbara (R-WY) $567,085
ANWAR
The people of Alaska want to drill in Anwar. That area of Alaska is barren. The people that live there are happy about the locations where they will drill, it will not threaten their ecology. They have 50% unemployment and seriously want this to happen.
The Alaskan pipeline is not filled to capacity. The pipe is rusting. If we drill in Anwar the oil would be put into the Alaskan pipeline. The oil would lubricate the pipe. The oil is not being sold to Japan as people commonly think (this only happened for the first year). Currently the oil gets shipped down the west coastline to oil refineries and the oil is distributed and used in the United States.
There are no mountains and beautiful tundra in the area of alaska set aside for drilling. The PHOTOS commonly shown are LIES. The areas being shown are south of ANWAR. The caribous don't even notice the pipeline, they lie down in large herds around the pipelines. The bears walk on top of the pipelines, they don't know that they're not logs.
Barren?
http://www
You are either blind... or just blinded by greed. And since you say yourself that there are Caribou, how can the landscape be barren?
Here is a visual definition of "barren":
http://con
Caribou are migratory and you can find many of them in other areas of Alaska that have the pipelines. Remember, we're not drilling in Anwar yet.
I've seen the propaganda pictures too, but then I saw the pictures of a recent trip that some senator made to Alaska, it was revealing. I also saw the people speak about how they helped to determine where it was okay to drill. They didn't want to ruin their local ecology.
Greed? Maybe I don't like that price of gas and the do nothing politicians in Washington. They finally have a bill that gives us a path to ENERGY INDEPENDENCE and you don't like it that we have to also drill offshore and possibly Anwar for oil, I guess you'd prefer $10 per gallon gas. Talk about being insensitive to people. We can have some oil in a year from offshore drilling and in 4 - 5 yrs from Anwar.
I can't understand where you get this, let the American people suffer or else mentallity,
Could it be that we are a reactive society and now you want to force people to suffer while you react? What about being proactive? We should have pressured our government to do something and we didn't, now we have to pay, its that simple. If we do nothing, where do you think we'll be?
That picture, KillTheMessenger, is not where the drilling will take place. The driling will be done on the other side of those mountains where it's completely barren, no flowers and certainly no animal life. Any picture that shows otherwise is simply meant to deceive. I have a picture of real area at home but not here; otherwise I'd post it.
They are trying hard to ram this drilling thing down our throats.
Dont let them have it.
What is the alternative?
How about solar from the desert? proof?
20,000,000 Barrels * 1.7 Mwh = 34,000,000Mwh
solar energy = 1kw / sq meter / hour
New mexico daily hours of sunlight average = 6.5
current efficiency of solar thermal/electric conversion technology = 31%
1 acre = 4046.825 sq meters
1 sq mile = 639.9974 acres
so...
One acre can deliver in one average day (at 30% efficiency)
4046.825sq meters * (1kw * .30 efficiency) * 6.5hours = 7.8 Kw/day
1 sq mile = 7.8kw/day * 639.9974 = 4.991 Mwh
How many acres of desert do we need?
34,000,000Mwh needed / 4.991Mwh/a
6,812,262 acres / 639.9974 acres/sq mile = 10664.2 square miles.
so... A single 100x100 mile solar thermal array would offset the entire oil consumption needs of the country, except for lubrication of course.
Add another in Nevada, and One in California or Arizona or Utah to make sure we never run out. There is no shortage of desert.
Existing solar thermal facilities can store enough heat to have the capacity to run for several days without sun, so it should be no problem to replicate the existing technology.
And then we have the wind, and the tide and geothermal, and nuclear. We have no need to ruin our shorelines.
NO NEED TO RUIN OUR SHORELINES?
Apparently you haven't heard that if we don't drill off our shorelines, other countries will. I think it is Cuba that is selling oil leases to India and Russia to drill 35, 50, or 70 miles off our shoreline in the gulf.
Denmark is one of the greenest nations in the world. They drill offshore. They drill 50 miles offshore where the rigs can't even be seen. That is what we would do too.
So how does that ruin the shoreline?
The drilling doesn't hurt the shoreline. The spills and subsequent refusal to properly clean it up do.
"So how does that ruin the shoreline?"
It is that pesky oil that leaks and then shows up on your shores, no matter how careful you are. And you think the Danes do not have a problem? Think again. Look at the European hazard map (I don't have to point out where Denmark is, do I?):
http://www
SOLAR IS EXPENSIVE, I'm for solar too as one of the solutions to our energy crisis. Apparently there are some additional problems that would have to be worked out for the infrastructure. Even though there are flexible solar panels for our roofs, they are expensive and if one cell goes bad you have to replace the whole solar panel like strings of Christmas lights. Then I would need tax incentives to help me to afford this solution.
The oil companies are saying now that we have to do other forms of energy too, but you can't force just solar down peoples throats either. They're not drilling the oil leases they have because they can't guarantee that there is enough oil to make it cost efficient. Oil companies have to hire drilling companies to do the drilling for them. They don't do their own drilling.
I'd love it if there were solar jackets we could give to the homeless to keep them warm but technology hasn't advanced to where we want it to be. But the "ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ACT" includes solar.
It is a BIPARTISAN BILL CREATED BY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.
THE GAS TAX IS A USE TAX, HOW DO WE TAX SOLAR? MAYBE THAT HAS BEEN THE STUMBLING BLOCK FOR SO MANY YEARS? HOW DO YOU TAX ELECTRIC CARS WHEN PEOPLE GENERATE THEIR OWN ELECTRICITY AT HOME WITH A WINDMILL. ?
Obviously you need to do some research into the difference between solar PV and solar thermal.
Solar is only expensive if you are not willing to pay its price.
And oil is only cheap if you externalize the real cost.
The gas tax, like the tobacco tax, is a punitive tax to assure that people conserve oil. That is all it ever has to be. However, it could easily be such an income source that it would make transition to cleaner and more sustainable energy possible.
And that is the problem. Our congress/senate wants to make money at all costs.
They will surpress anything and everything that makes sense and point the fingers at
everything else but the obvious.
A few terrorist attacks and the whole country is shutdown. I think it would be smarter to have more than one egg in our basket. I watched a program this year on your idea and I recall that there were some issues that need to be worked out before something like this is actually feasible.
Do you have stock or some other interest in just solar? And how long will it take? What are the implementation costs?
I'd like to know more.
So split it up into 100 or 1000 separate facilities. Mix them up with wind and tidal and geothermal. I dont care. The point is that we are not as dependent on oil as you would have us believe.
How long will it take and what are the economics? its happening now, and at comparable prices.
http://blo
http://www
efficiency:
http://www
http://www
economics:
http://ips
There is a ton of material available if you really want to know. Just do a google search on solar thermal.
You can do the same for wind energy, or geothermal, or tidal. If you come up with a way to safely store nuclear waste, I will even support you in that. But i wont support doing the same old thing just because its what we have always done. Thats how we got to where we are.
And no, I have no financial interest in the energy business.
That's alot of acres of solar panels. I wonder what they'd look like? I'm sure there are some people here that would like to preserve the wildlife and pristine beauty of the desserts. How would we deal with the waste byproducts of defunct panels and equipment?
I'm not trying to discourage this idea, its just that we need other solutions as well. Why don't we just put solar panels on our homes? Get the price down and I'd like to do it.
I also wish my state had a tax credit for a windmill. Home versions run about $20,000 I'm told.
I think its too risky to just implement one thing, then what if it doesn't pan out?
Not solar panels. Solar thermal uses mirrors.
Well, if we controlled the amount of people that would be a start.
PRICE GOUGING?
The Congress has investigated price gouging 9 times and they got the same answer every time. When you do something repeatedly and get the same answer but expect a different result, that is the definition of (insanity or stupidity - your choice) Anyways, when you hear that PRICE GOUGING is the problem, you're being LIED TO. Some people running for office are actually saying they will investigate price gouging again! Is is because we are supposed to be uneducated and don't watch what's going on in our own government?
NOW the congress has held meetings and FINALLY understands that we need both short and long term solutions, to drop the prices of oil. Together in a BIPARTISAN bill called the "ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ACT" that PELOSI refuses to bring to a vote, we have a solution. Call her and tell her not to take a 5 week vaction, to stay in Washington and vote on this bill! It has an "ALL OF THE ABOVE" strategy to make us Energy Independent. IT WILL CREATE A TON OF NEW JOBS. Solar, wind, renewables, domestic oil and other fuels, clean energy, refineries, energy conservati
PELOSI 202-224-3121
Isn't the "Energy Independence Act" the official name for "DRILL! DRILL! DRILL!"?
:-)
I don't think so. Though some people would like you to believe that.
It has wind, solar, and every other solution you can think of, including previsions for future unknow technologies.
SPECULATION
The world oil market has until recently had 3-4 million barrels on the market exceeding demand. Now with the demands of emerging countries like China, supply and demand are even or flat as its called.
In a hearing it was revealed that if 2 million more barrels were on the market the price would go down.
If we were to pass the BIPARTISAN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ACT, the oil speculartors would no longer be a problem and they would bail, dropping the price. A few bailed when Bush announced lifting the executive order against offshore drilling. Why? Anticipation that our supply would be up, our use would be down and we would eventually, no longer be dependent on other countries for our energy needs as the country moves to a comprehensive energy plan for independence.
Just two weeks ago it was reported that there were fewer outstanding speculative oil contracts than at any time since early 2007 when oil was near $50 a barrel. As far as oil demand, you forgot to mention that global oil capacity is not much higher than global oil demand. I don't know how people don't understand this. Oil demand will go down with a global recession, but it won't solve the core of the problem, which is global supply constraints. Oil production is down across the board: it's down for Exxon-Mobil as evidenced by their quarterly report yesterday, it's down in Mexico, down in Venezuela, down in Iran, down in the North Sea, down in Russia, etc. The situation to me is quite simple - even if the price of oil goes down in the short term because of a recession, it will go right back up because of there's little slack capacity world-wide.
and that is the unvarnished truth.
Then pass a bill outlawing energy speculation. No more, no less. One issue, one bill. No more bad bills that pass bad issues just to get one good thing from them. Want solar, pass a bill for it. want wind? pass a bill for it.
The energy speculation bill will not solve the problem of world wide demand. That will drive the price up regardless of your bill. Wouldn't you rather see us commit to implementing all the solutions we have been hearing about?
Did you know that if every car in the United States got one MPG better fuel efficiency, it would be like adding 350,000 barrels of oil to the supply? The demands for energy are exploding world wide and we can't control it. If we all had a car that got 200 miles per gallon, which the company AFS trinity says is in the works, then we could reduce demand dramatically if there were tax credits to buy it. It's called the extreme hybrid.
A speculation bill is no substitute for REAL SOLUTIONS.
Why not pass one bill with everything "THE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ACT" and give everyone the best chance possible for meeting the energy demands of the future?
Oh right, lets make people suffer, they can't afford gas, they can't afford clothes, and they lose their homes because they can't afford their mortgage payments because their other expenses are over the top.... well , I feel for the people that are hurting. Don't you? How much more can they take?
So you are really saying "DRILL! DRILL! DRILL!"? Aren't you?
THIS IS A BIPARTISAN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.
Energy Independence Act
Drilling offshore is just one SMALL Part, its only a fraction of the solutions that would be implemented. Drill here and keep the jobs and money here in the U.S. instead of funding the terrorists
I think you are afraid that if we drill that other forms of energy won't be pursued. Well, you'd be wrong. The future demands for energy will be so great that you don't have to worry about that.
We couldn't drill enough oil to meet our future demands.
I think people should try watching C-span. They would find out that today there is an opportunity to pass a BIPARTISAN bill called the "ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ACT" . It has an "all of the above" stragegy with and includes ALL of the solutions to our energy problems. PELOSI IS TRYING TO SHUT IT DOWN! It includes every energy solution out there and proposes that we use them all! Clean nuclear, Clean coal, offshore drilling, wind, solar, renewable forms of energy, and conservation, infrastructure for energy, conservation with fuel efficient vehicles EVERYTHING including future technologies. If it came to a vote, it would be passed because FINALLY THE GOVERNMENT HAS A REAL SOLUTION TO A REAL PROBLEM. Call Pelosi 202-224-3121
T.Boone Pickens in an interview said we have to drill offshore, he also said that we have to use all solutions and can't just rely on oil to drill our way out of the problem. We need to use all solutions to secure our ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. 85% of the best drilling sites are offshore and in Anwar. It will take less than 1year to drill in some places in the gulf to get oil. It will take 4 or 5 yrs to get oil from Anwar, There are platforms ready to go off the shore of California. Sweden discovered gas last month and will be drilling by Sept. The country that put a man on the moon can drill oil in less than a year.
A very good way would be to push Pelosi to let Conyer's proceed with impeachment proceedings. I'm so tired of Democrats waiting to get hit upside the head, instead of doing the hitting. This would be a boon for Barack. The attention would be off of him and on John McCain and impeachment- and how the two are similiar. You think people are going to like John McCain more if his da da is under the gun?? No. There was a judiciary hearing fri 25 jul and it's gaining traction, despite the media ignoring it. Believe me when I say that the Republicans will be committing political suicide by supporting this criminal executive branch. And it will take the focus off of Barack and put it squarely on John McBush III. We have a once in a lifetime chance to hit one out of the park doing this, but we need to do it NOW! Donate, call, email and talk to others and let's redeem ourselves. The best defense is a devastating OFFENSE. Why is it the Repugs get credit for being vicious? We can be too, if liberty is on the line! Please help push Pelosi!
And yet their stooges in Washington are pressing to open up more offshore and Arctic sites to these guys? If they're doing so well and we (the people) are still hurting, I doubt whether Exxon more resources is going help anyone but their shareholders. In fact, a recent CNN report states that oil companies are currently utilizing only 20 of 90 million acres of productive land they have on lease (This Is Not A Drill). If they're really short on oil they can tap into that. No need to give the scoundrels any more real estate!
Obama has been talking about this at his town hall meetings this week.
Now is the time to state it in an ad. Many voters are being duped by McCain and the corporate media, thinking the oil companies need protected lands for this purpose when they already have so many offshore leases THEY ARE CHOOSING NOT to use!
Exxon and other oil companies need the additional land to drill as their production is falling. The leases these companies currently hold either don't have enough oil to make drilling worthwhile or they are handstrung by red tape that is setting back drilling for years and years. If the outer-continental shelf, the arctic, and other areas currently under moratorium are made free to drill and the red tape is then taken off, we could see a gusher of new oil supply within a couple years that will reduce the price of oil, create new jobs for Americans in a time of economic weakness, and help the balance of payments and trade deficit. People are overlooking the fact that despite record earnings and the record high price of oil, Exxon's share price is still about where it was a year ago; and that's because Exxon makes virtually no money on refining gasoline and has been unable to increase production.
A gusher? You meant to say a "burp".
We can't drill our problem out of this. Not with giving land, not with throwing money at people who don't need it. Not with anything.
Party is over! The sooner the addicts get that, the sooner we can move on to a solution.
I agree that it's disgraceful for public officials to be motivated so highly by big oil, but I think it's also important to note just how integrated 'big oil' is in a lot of these communities.
My mom is from a little itty-bitty town called Norco, Louisiana (if you Google map the city for tickles and grins you will see that it is SURROUNDED by Shell and GATX refineries
I think the problem that these public officials have is that they (and their communities by proxy) cannot function without this money. It's an odd kind of 'Oil Welfare' that is way too hard to shake.
I haven't heard complaints about the offshore drilling that is already occurring. What I've heard is people saying the companies need additional currently protecting lands. And this at a time when they already have at least 40,000,000 acres of leases they are choosing not to use.
They need to use those before they start grabbing for protected areas.
Absolutely! It's unfortunate that this isn't a more widely known fact.
The republican version of millions of small campaign donors. Hey O did it so we can too. Considering how much it costs to fill the tank, is there a cap on how much I can donate to the republicans? I sure wouldn't want to break the law.
i am so glad O will win in nov. mcc is being supported by the oil industry. the gop have no shame.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
