PDA

View Full Version : you know who's side the're on when...



Qtec
02-19-2011, 04:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">House turns back Markey plan to recover oil royalties
By Ben Geman - 02/18/11 09:25 PM ET

The House rejected an amendment Friday night aimed at pressuring oil-and-gas producers to renegotiate offshore leases that currently allow them to avoid paying federal royalties even when energy prices are high.

Lawmakers voted 174-251 against Rep. Ed Markey’s (D-Mass.) amendment to the fiscal year 2011 spending bill.

Markey’s plan was designed to ensure royalty payments from companies holding deepwater Gulf of Mexico leases issued between 1996 and 2000 – contracts that currently provide waivers from the payments.

Markey’s plan would have prevented the Interior Department from issuing new leases to companies holding the 1996-2000 leases, in order to get the companies to accept “price thresholds” on those leases that end the waivers when oil and natural gas prices exceed certain limits (we wrote more about Markey’s plan here).

The Massachusetts Democrat, speaking on the House floor earlier Friday, had urged colleagues to back the plan, which would have prevented Interior from using fiscal year 2011 funding to issue new leases.

He cited estimates that the royalty waivers could ultimately cost the government over<span style='font-size: 14pt'> $50 billion </span>in forgone payments from oil companies.

“We all agree that we have to do some serious work to reduce the deficit,” said Markey, a longtime foe of oil companies. <span style="color: #990000">“With oil prices at $90 a barrel, we do not have to be allowing them to drill on public lands for free and keep all of the profits for themselves and give nothing back to the American taxpayer.”</span>

But <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Republicans attacked the plan</span>, warning it would limit energy development.
</div></div>

link (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/145235-house-turns-back-markey-plan-to-recover-oil-royalties)

Q

LWW
02-19-2011, 05:44 AM
Are you denying that increasing costs to do research doesn't act as a brake on that research?

Do you actually know anything about economics ... I mean <span style='font-size: 11pt'>ANYTHING</span> at all?

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-19-2011, 09:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">House turns back Markey plan to recover oil royalties
By Ben Geman - 02/18/11 09:25 PM ET

The House rejected an amendment Friday night aimed at pressuring oil-and-gas producers to renegotiate offshore leases that currently allow them to avoid paying federal royalties even when energy prices are high.

Lawmakers voted 174-251 against Rep. Ed Markey’s (D-Mass.) amendment to the fiscal year 2011 spending bill.

Markey’s plan was designed to ensure royalty payments from companies holding deepwater Gulf of Mexico leases issued between 1996 and 2000 – contracts that currently provide waivers from the payments.

Markey’s plan would have prevented the Interior Department from issuing new leases to companies holding the 1996-2000 leases, in order to get the companies to accept “price thresholds” on those leases that end the waivers when oil and natural gas prices exceed certain limits (we wrote more about Markey’s plan here).

The Massachusetts Democrat, speaking on the House floor earlier Friday, had urged colleagues to back the plan, which would have prevented Interior from using fiscal year 2011 funding to issue new leases.

He cited estimates that the royalty waivers could ultimately cost the government over<span style='font-size: 14pt'> $50 billion </span>in forgone payments from oil companies.

“We all agree that we have to do some serious work to reduce the deficit,” said Markey, a longtime foe of oil companies. <span style="color: #990000">“With oil prices at $90 a barrel, we do not have to be allowing them to drill on public lands for free and keep all of the profits for themselves and give nothing back to the American taxpayer.”</span>

But <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Republicans attacked the plan</span>, warning it would limit energy development.
</div></div>

link (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/145235-house-turns-back-markey-plan-to-recover-oil-royalties)

Q </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He cited estimates that the royalty waivers could ultimately cost the government over $50 billion in forgone payments from oil companies.

</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“With oil prices at $90 a barrel, we do not have to be allowing them to drill on public lands for free and keep all of the profits for themselves and give nothing back to the American taxpayer.”

</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Proof of the economic stupidity of the right! The have been sooooooo bain washed, there is no saving them!

G.</span></span>

pooltchr
02-19-2011, 10:03 AM
Since your leader has made the gulf off limits to drilling, where would you suggest they go to get the oil that YOU need?

Steve

Soflasnapper
02-19-2011, 10:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since your leader has made the gulf off limits to drilling, where would you suggest they go to get the oil that YOU need?

Steve </div></div>

There are thousands of wells there now, pumping, if not drilling. I think the moratorium is off now as well, actually.

Sev
02-19-2011, 10:52 AM
I dont believe it is.

A federal court just ordered the administration to resolve the issue.

However I am unsure if its the gulf or the east coast.

LWW
02-19-2011, 11:42 AM
You don't even know what side you are on.

LWW