Oh, sorry, I meant to write DRILLING, but screwing is a more apt term (although vulgar, I'll admit) In an earlier post, I pointed out that some market experts are saying that oil could hit $200 per barrel by Christmas. Now Bush and Dems are sparring about the blame for the increase in oil prices: Bush wants new drilling in new places, while Democrats are scratching their heads: why? Why can't we make use of the oil that's under our feet? Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen said in the Democrats' radio address.
"Democrats support more drilling," he said. "In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production. That is why in the coming days congressional Democrats will vote on 'Use It or Lose It' legislation requiring the big oil companies to develop these resources or lose their leases to someone else who will."
68 million acres. Doesn't that sound like a lot of unused space? "Use It or Lose It" legislation sounds like a good idea. Anyway, is there anything to lose? Possibly. For Halliburton, for example:
A BBC Panorama investigation in June 2008 implicated Halliburton and others in "the largest war profiteering in history." ("BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions" by Jane Corbin). They estimate that around $23bn may have been lost, stolen or improperly accounted for. A US gagging order is preventing discussion of these allegations in the USA. The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.Now it's the oil companies' turn - to answer questions. #1. Which companies own the inactive leases on 68 million acres of drill-able land and water? #2. Why haven't those companies taken advantage of those leases? #3. Which big oil companies and their suppliers would profit from NEW areas to drill?
We'll if or how any one of them deigns to answer them.