Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
If true (the sham part), why would a company pay real money for the rights to drill?
If true will the real money paid not have an impact on state and federal budgets?
If true (the 20 years part), should that be the reason not to do it?
If true should we confiscate the OCS crystal ball and use it for other things, since we must assume they are going to be dead on accurate?
O.k. no more rhetorical questions. The opposite of drilling must be true. Not drilling will solve our problems.
|
1. I'm guessing that most of the 'available oil' cited is in fact prohibitively expensive to reach. So the claim is technically true, but misleading. But that's just a guess.
2. I doubt the money paid will be enough to make a large impact on the federal budget, and even less on the state budget.
3 (and the real point I wanted to make) it's not so much that the 20 years part means it's a bad idea; it's that drilling off-shore is being touted as a solution to the high gas prices we're suffering now. So the fact that more drilling won't make a difference for at least 10 years means that it's probably being used as a cheap political ploy.