• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Seahawk Drilling seeks bankruptcy, to sell assets

apdst

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Obama is doing an awesome job fixing the economy. Who woulda thunk that killing private business would have been the quickest route to economic recovery?

HOUSTON (AP) — Seahawk Drilling Inc. said it has filed for bankruptcy protection and plans to sell its fleet of offshore drilling rigs to a competitor for $105 million.

Seahawk, which announced the deal with Hercules Offshore Inc. Friday, has been hurt by a slowdown in Gulf of Mexico drilling after the BP oil spill last April. The government halted drilling in deep waters and imposed tough new rules that have curtained all energy exploration in U.S. waters.

Seahawk Drilling seeks bankruptcy, to sell assets - USATODAY.com
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, I know..."ol' evil oil companies!". Look at it this way: the only folks hurt by this are the working folks, who no longer have jobs, because the evil profiteers are going to split up $105 million.

I had to throw in the link to Gateway Pundit as bonus, because the title of the blog is so damn cool...and accurate. Plus, I linked to the article, through their site, so I'll give them credit, along with American Thinker.

Obama’s Illegal Moratorium Forces Major Drilling Company to Go Bankrupt | The Gateway Pundit
 
you mean this Seahawk Drilling?
Seahawk Drilling: Former Value Trap Becoming an Actual Value - Seeking Alpha

"Seahawk was spun out of Pride International (PDE) in 2009 and operates 20 jackup rigs in the Gulf of Mexico (of which 4 are currently working, 1 has a permit pending, 1 is cold stacked/in repairs and contracted for the remainder this year, 3 are actively available and 11 are cold stacked). These rigs are primarily used for shallow water drilling of natural gas in the US Gulf of Mexico (GoM)."

says here the already sucked and had sucked for some time..
"HAWK already carried a fair amount of uncertainty due to the large number of rigs they have cold stacked, the age of their rigs and their quarterly cash burn ... all problems that are largely derived from the decline in utilization since 2008, when the GoM was running on all cylinders with oil and gas at record highs."

looks to me like poor management skills, rather than a hold on deepwater drilling which they apparently are no a part of.
 
WhyteRash said:
you mean this Seahawk Drilling?
Seahawk Drilling: Former Value Trap Becoming an Actual Value - Seeking Alpha

"Seahawk was spun out of Pride International (PDE) in 2009 and operates 20 jackup rigs in the Gulf of Mexico (of which 4 are currently working, 1 has a permit pending, 1 is cold stacked/in repairs and contracted for the remainder this year, 3 are actively available and 11 are cold stacked). These rigs are primarily used for shallow water drilling of natural gas in the US Gulf of Mexico (GoM)."

says here the already sucked and had sucked for some time..
"HAWK already carried a fair amount of uncertainty due to the large number of rigs they have cold stacked, the age of their rigs and their quarterly cash burn ... all problems that are largely derived from the decline in utilization since 2008, when the GoM was running on all cylinders with oil and gas at record highs."

looks to me like poor management skills, rather than a hold on deepwater drilling which they apparently are no a part of.
Click to expand...

Seahawk is a shallow water drilling company. Currently, the are no drilling permits being issued, in deepwater, or shallow water.
 
apdst said:
Obama is doing an awesome job fixing the economy. Who woulda thunk that killing private business would have been the quickest route to economic recovery?





Yeah, yeah, I know..."ol' evil oil companies!". Look at it this way: the only folks hurt by this are the working folks, who no longer have jobs, because the evil profiteers are going to split up $105 million.

I had to throw in the link to Gateway Pundit as bonus, because the title of the blog is so damn cool...and accurate. Plus, I linked to the article, through their site, so I'll give them credit, along with American Thinker.

Obama’s Illegal Moratorium Forces Major Drilling Company to Go Bankrupt | The Gateway Pundit
Click to expand...


Put 'em to work in jobs building clean energy that do not create environmental damage. We have to start thinking long-term. We can't afford to ruin our environment just because we were too lazy to plan during the last 40 years when it was known we had passed peak oil in this country.

You've come to learn I am sure that actions have consequences. Well, so do inactions when you know there is threat and you do nothing.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Put 'em to work in jobs building clean energy that do not create environmental damage. We have to start thinking long-term. We can't afford to ruin our environment just because we were too lazy to plan during the last 40 years when it was known we had passed peak oil in this country.
Click to expand...


Ok. Um, are those jobs ready to go...today? Which of these new and kewl green industries are ready to put a few hundred thousand people to work right now? Believe it, or not, the bills are still coming in and these Americans need jobs, now. Not 20+ years from now when these fantasy, "green", jobs finally become a reality.

You've come to learn I am sure that actions have consequences. Well, so do inactions when you know there is threat and you do nothing.
Click to expand...

That's right and when a president does something as immoral as putting tens of thousands possibly hundreds of thousands of working class citizens out of work, all so he can push his agenda, he'll suffer the concequences, as well. He's going to be out of a job, too.
 
apdst said:
Ok. Um, are those jobs ready to go...today? Which of these new and kewl green industries are ready to put a few hundred thousand people to work right now? Believe it, or not, the bills are still coming in and these Americans need jobs, now. Not 20+ years from now when these fantasy, "green", jobs finally become a reality.

That's right and when a president does something as immoral as putting tens of thousands possibly hundreds of thousands of working class citizens out of work, all so he can push his agenda, he'll suffer the concequences, as well. He's going to be out of a job, too.
Click to expand...


Obama inherited the recession and reversed its course. Additionally, he has proposed 8 billion in funding for clean energy research and deployment in his 2012 budget by slashing subsidies for fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal. We don't have another 20 years before the world hits peak oil, the Military is estimating we have about 3 years.
Barack Obama 2012 budget provides $8bn for clean energy | Environment | guardian.co.uk
 
Catawba said:
Obama inherited the recession and reversed its course. Additionally, he has proposed 8 billion in funding for clean energy research and deployment in his 2012 budget by slashing subsidies for fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal. We don't have another 20 years before the world hits peak oil, the Military is estimating we have about 3 years.
Barack Obama 2012 budget provides $8bn for clean energy | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...


Two things I find unsettling about your post, first with only 3 years left in peak oil supplies, we are in dire circumstances. Because I have seen no indication that we are any place close to 3 years in development of an alternate energy, do you ? If not what are we going to do ?

Next is the 8 billion being provided for clean energy, you state that Obama is slashing subsidies for fossil fuels, but the reality of it is, he is slashing nothing, merely exchanging it. Which in the long run isn't going to put us in any different situation then what we are now in, just who we are giving the money to. Thats not even a good slight of hand, it's just transferring of money from one industry to the other, in my opinion we should just stop subsiding such things all together.

While I don't think that too many people, even conservatives, don't agree that we need to get to a cleaner alternate fuel, the disagreement seems to come from what do we do until we get there.

Right now, with the problems facing our country, unemployment, debt, and jobs, I for the life of me can't see the downside to tapping into our very own oil supplies. If drilling were to start today, good paying jobs would be created, within the 3 to 5 period, we could begin pumping that oil. Once we begin pumping it, we could immediately begin to import less oil, thus keeping more of our money within our country, don't see that as a bad thing do you? Now lets say in 10 years, we come up with an alternate fuel, that is cleaner, less expensive, and the American people are willing to use. This happens, then all that oil being pumped that we were using for our own needs, now becomes an export item, that brings more money into this country.

So while I don't see drilling for the oil under our very feet, as a means to an end of our problems concerning a cleaner energy, I do see it as a fix for some of the problems facing our nation today. I also have a hard time finding a downside to drilling. It would create much needed jobs, reduce our need of imported oil, and in the future, once an alternate energy is found, gives us a valuable export.
 
The Barbarian said:
Two things I find unsettling about your post, first with only 3 years left in peak oil supplies, we are in dire circumstances. Because I have seen no indication that we are any place close to 3 years in development of an alternate energy, do you ? If not what are we going to do ?
Click to expand...

The short term answer is to do what conservatives are not known for doing......................conserve.

Next is the 8 billion being provided for clean energy, you state that Obama is slashing subsidies for fossil fuels, but the reality of it is, he is slashing nothing, merely exchanging it.
Click to expand...

Yes, he is paying for a program to enhance long-term energy solutions by cutting programs that have led us to a dependency of a declining energy supply that can only be maintained with war.

Which in the long run isn't going to put us in any different situation then what we are now in,
Click to expand...

Only if your don't consider sustainable energy to be preferable to non-sustainable energy.

just who we are giving the money to. Thats not even a good slight of hand, it's just transferring of money from one industry to the other, in my opinion we should just stop subsiding such things all together.
Click to expand...

If we were not in a crisis situation I might be more inclined to agree with you. Here is what is budgeted for clean energy -

"the Department of Energy (DOE) budget calls for $36 billion in new loan guarantee authority for the nuclear power industry, which combined with existing authority could help get six to eight plants built."

"the White House proposes spending some $8 billion on clean energy-related topics, spread among a wide range of programs. A big chunk, some $3.2 billion, would go to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. Nearly $600 million would fund investment in vehicle technologies.

The president’s budget also proposes spending $550 million on ARPA-E, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which provides seed money to cutting-edge technologies in the hope of spurring private investment and, ultimately, groundbreaking innovation. The program was funded with $400 million in Recovery Act money in 2009, but has been running on empty since then.

As previously revealed, the president is looking for $8 billion in the coming year to help push forward on a planned high-speed rail network that would cost $53 billion over six years, and the budget also makes way for turning a $7,500 electric-vehicle tax credit into a rebate."
Obama Budget Looks To Boost Clean Energy | EarthTechling

While I don't think that too many people, even conservatives, don't agree that we need to get to a cleaner alternate fuel, the disagreement seems to come from what do we do until we get there.
Click to expand...

Conserve.


Right now, with the problems facing our country, unemployment, debt, and jobs, I for the life of me can't see the downside to tapping into our very own oil supplies.
Click to expand...

The main downside is that we haven't had the capacity to supply our own needs since 1971. Drill baby drill is just a campaign slogan. The oil companies admitted this in their Energy Task Force Report.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Ok. Um, are those jobs ready to go...today? Which of these new and kewl green industries are ready to put a few hundred thousand people to work right now? Believe it, or not, the bills are still coming in and these Americans need jobs, now. Not 20+ years from now when these fantasy, "green", jobs finally become a reality.



That's right and when a president does something as immoral as putting tens of thousands possibly hundreds of thousands of working class citizens out of work, all so he can push his agenda, he'll suffer the concequences, as well. He's going to be out of a job, too.
Click to expand...

Remember the president does not expect to carry your state. So what does he care if he loses it by more votes. Unless those workers join the SEIU and promise to vote for Obama they can rot as far as he cares.
 
Catawba said:
Obama inherited the recession and reversed its course. Additionally, he has proposed 8 billion in funding for clean energy research and deployment in his 2012 budget by slashing subsidies for fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal. We don't have another 20 years before the world hits peak oil, the Military is estimating we have about 3 years.
Barack Obama 2012 budget provides $8bn for clean energy | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...

OMG! Not that talking point...again.
 
washunut said:
Remember the president does not expect to carry your state. So what does he care if he loses it by more votes. Unless those workers join the SEIU and promise to vote for Obama they can rot as far as he cares.
Click to expand...

At some point, he's got to start worrying about how many votes from other states he'll lose over this.
 
apdst said:
OMG! Not that talking point...again.
Click to expand...

Let me weigh this out. I can believe the military, the world's geologists, and the oil companies, or I can just take Apdst's word for it.

I think you know which way I gotta go soldier.
 
Catawba said:
The short term answer is to do what conservatives are not known for doing......................conserve.



Yes, he is paying for a program to enhance long-term energy solutions by cutting programs that have led us to a dependency of a declining energy supply that can only be maintained with war.



Only if your don't consider sustainable energy to be preferable to non-sustainable energy.



If we were not in a crisis situation I might be more inclined to agree with you. Here is what is budgeted for clean energy -

"the Department of Energy (DOE) budget calls for $36 billion in new loan guarantee authority for the nuclear power industry, which combined with existing authority could help get six to eight plants built."

"the White House proposes spending some $8 billion on clean energy-related topics, spread among a wide range of programs. A big chunk, some $3.2 billion, would go to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. Nearly $600 million would fund investment in vehicle technologies.

The president’s budget also proposes spending $550 million on ARPA-E, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which provides seed money to cutting-edge technologies in the hope of spurring private investment and, ultimately, groundbreaking innovation. The program was funded with $400 million in Recovery Act money in 2009, but has been running on empty since then.

As previously revealed, the president is looking for $8 billion in the coming year to help push forward on a planned high-speed rail network that would cost $53 billion over six years, and the budget also makes way for turning a $7,500 electric-vehicle tax credit into a rebate."
Obama Budget Looks To Boost Clean Energy | EarthTechling



Conserve.




The main downside is that we haven't had the capacity to supply our own needs since 1971. Drill baby drill is just a campaign slogan. The oil companies admitted this in their Energy Task Force Report.
Click to expand...


Even if tomorrow we were magically able to reduce consumption by 25%, that would stretch that peek oil out to what 4 years? Then what … conserve more? If that is your only answer to the problems we face today, we are in deep sh*t.

Either subsidies are a good thing, or they are a bad thing, you can't have it both ways, because 25 years down the road, there will be those big evil sustainable fuel companies still getting subsidies, just as the big evil oil companies are now. From your response you are for subsidies, you just don't like the oil companies.

I'm all fore nuclear plants, I believe most conservatives have been for quite some time. Perhaps if this administration was really for them, they would figure out a way of cutting the red tape that a company has to go through to get permits to begin construction, I think I've read somewhere where it takes between 3 and 5 years to just get a permit.

It's nice to see that you are really for increasing subsidies, now to include the auto companies, putting a $7.500 rebate on the tax payers shoulders, is really nothing more then another subsidy now isn't it?
Perhaps a better idea, with this administration, would be to just pass a law forcing people to buy electric cars, or face fines imposed by the IRS.

As for the high speed rail, I'm not even going to get into that, one only needs to look at Amtrak to see how well our government handles such things. I believe Amtrak only lost a billion dollars last year, and that was considered one of it's “better” years.

The oil companies, only need the price of oil to stay above 75 dollars a barrel, to make it profitable to drill for oil right here in the USA, the new drilling technology they have now allows them to drill more effectively on land. Could drill baby drill be effective in reducing our need of oil imports, of course it would, to say otherwise is just a bald face lie. Would we be completely off foreign oil, I highly doubt it.

However unless I'm missing something, tell me how conserving is going to give us more jobs then drilling would? As I said and stand by, I fail to see a downside in drilling, and you have yet to show one either.
 
Catawba said:
Let me weigh this out. I can believe the military, the world's geologists, and the oil companies, or I can just take Apdst's word for it.

I think you know which way I gotta go soldier.
Click to expand...

I guess the reason all those oil companies want to drill for oil, is because we've runned out? Wanna try again?

Be sure and let us know when all thos awesome ass green jobs are available. Folks need to go to work.
 
The Barbarian said:
Even if tomorrow we were magically able to reduce consumption by 25%, that would stretch that peek oil out to what 4 years? Then what … conserve more? If that is your only answer to the problems we face today, we are in deep sh*t.
Click to expand...

Yep, that is why the military issued the warning. Its not like this just slipped up on us. 1971 was the last year we were able to produce as much oil as we consumed.

Either subsidies are a good thing, or they are a bad thing, you can't have it both ways, because 25 years down the road, there will be those big evil sustainable fuel companies still getting subsidies, just as the big evil oil companies are now. From your response you are for subsidies, you just don't like the oil companies.
Click to expand...

I am not for subsidies, I am for funding for R&D, and tax credits for utilizing energy saving manufacture, both temporary to jump start our clean energy efforts.

I'm all fore nuclear plants, I believe most conservatives have been for quite some time. Perhaps if this administration was really for them, they would figure out a way of cutting the red tape that a company has to go through to get permits to begin construction, I think I've read somewhere where it takes between 3 and 5 years to just get a permit.
Click to expand...

This administration just put more in the budget for nuclear power than any president in history. We've seen the kind of environmental disasters that occur when safety considerations are ignored. Our lack of planning for the last 40 years does not give us justification to put the environment at further risk.

It's nice to see that you are really for increasing subsidies, now to include the auto companies, putting a $7.500 rebate on the tax payers shoulders, is really nothing more then another subsidy now isn't it?
Click to expand...

No, its a temporary incentive to help encourage the public to conserve and reduce CO2, the cause of GW at the same time.

Perhaps a better idea, with this administration, would be to just pass a law forcing people to buy electric cars, or face fines imposed by the IRS.
Click to expand...

Congress passes laws not the president.

As for the high speed rail, I'm not even going to get into that
Click to expand...

Me either.

The oil companies, only need the price of oil to stay above 75 dollars a barrel, to make it profitable to drill for oil right here in the USA, the new drilling technology they have now allows them to drill more effectively on land. Could drill baby drill be effective in reducing our need of oil imports, of course it would, to say otherwise is just a bald face lie. Would we be completely off foreign oil, I highly doubt it.
Click to expand...

Knock yourself out. The oil companies have said it ain't happening, but go ahead and get your rig out there and see what you can do. :sun

However unless I'm missing something, tell me how conserving is going to give us more jobs then drilling would? As I said and stand by, I fail to see a downside in drilling, and you have yet to show one either.
Click to expand...

Ask the Chinese who are taking over as the leader in the manufacture of alternative energy technology while we continue to rely on a depleting resource while our economy drowns in debt for wars to keep the oil supply flowing to us.
 
apdst said:
I guess the reason all those oil companies want to drill for oil, is because we've runned out? Wanna try again?
Click to expand...

The oil companies seek profits. As long as we are stupid enough to pay ever increasing prices for an ever diminishing product, they are happy to rake in the record profits they are making. You wanna try again to prove that we have produced more than we consume for any of the last 40 years?

Be sure and let us know when all thos awesome ass green jobs are available. Folks need to go to work.
Click to expand...

You better hope there are "thos awesome ass green jobs" when the oil based economy starts going down the tubes.:sun
 
Catawba said:
The oil companies seek profits. As long as we are stupid enough to pay ever increasing prices for an ever diminishing product, they are happy to rake in the record profits they are making. You wanna try again to prove that we have produced more than we consume for any of the last 40 years?
Click to expand...

Why aren't they developing all that green energy, if it's such a groovy idea?


You better hope there are "thos awesome ass green jobs" when the oil based economy starts going down the tubes.:sun
Click to expand...

If green energy is such a great idea, why isn't the private sector rushing to invest in it's production and creation of a market?
 
apdst said:
At some point, he's got to start worrying about how many votes from other states he'll lose over this.
Click to expand...

Just yesterday I heard Joe S. from MSNBC. Using his base he is jut about assured of victory as long as he holds it together. So he does not have to worry about picking up or losing a few states.
 
apdst said:
Obama is doing an awesome job fixing the economy.
Click to expand...

It's doing a lot better than when the GOP's Glorious Leader left it on 1/20/2009. And that's despite universal, shrill, and constant obstruction from Republicans. I call that a worthy achievement in two years. Ronald Reagan certainly doesn't match such a record.

apdst said:
Who woulda thunk that killing private business would have been the quickest route to economic recovery?
Click to expand...

The people you elected in 2000 and 2004.

apdst said:
Yeah, yeah, I know..."ol' evil oil companies!".
Click to expand...

Their reputation is well-earned.

apdst said:
Look at it this way: the only folks hurt by this are the working folks, who no longer have jobs, because the evil profiteers are going to split up $105 million.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning is faulty. The oil industry hurts the economy as a whole over the long-term, which means oil industry jobs actually cost more jobs than they provide. If we were to apply your logic, then an industry that makes money by randomly shooting people on the street and picking their pockets should continue because shutting it down would cost the jobs of its secretaries and file clerks. Common sense dictates that an industry whose net economic impact is negative would better serve the working public by not existing at all than by being perpetually subsidized, as it's been for generations. People should have access to quality jobs and job training service, but then I've seen you oppose such programs as "socialism." The only possible interpretation is that you think the government shouldn't make economic decisions at all, which in turn means you don't think there should even be a government, because that's one of the things governments do - it's written in the Constitution that the government regulates interstate commerce, and no government on the planet abstains from involvement, because that would be moronic and pointless.
 
=Catawba;1059287651]Yep, that is why the military issued the warning. Its not like this just slipped up on us. 1971 was the last year we were able to produce as much oil as we consumed.
Click to expand...

okay so you only answer is to conserve, and let us just run out of it in 4 years, sorry to me that just doesn't sound like good policy.

I am not for subsidies, I am for funding for R&D, and tax credits for utilizing energy saving manufacture, both temporary to jump start our clean energy efforts.
Click to expand...

I dare say that is the same thing that was said about subsidies that are ongoing today.

This administration just put more in the budget for nuclear power than any president in history. We've seen the kind of environmental disasters that occur when safety considerations are ignored. Our lack of planning for the last 40 years does not give us justification to put the environment at further risk.
Click to expand...

Safety has nothing to do with the permitting process, that is done through inspections in the field, and no one is suggesting that building regulations be reduced, just that the permitting process be streamlined to allow plants to begin construction, the inspections and regulations can and should be enforced during the construction process.



No, its a temporary incentive to help encourage the public to conserve and reduce CO2, the cause of GW at the same time.
Click to expand...

Then just put a product out their that the people want, the problem with electric cars, can't be fixed government hands outs, it's the public don't seem to like them.



Congress passes laws not the president.
Click to expand...

okay.. so liberals still control congress ... pass a law, forcing people to buy electric cars, the president doesn't have any objection to forcing people to purchase things, as we have already seen.

Knock yourself out. The oil companies have said it ain't happening, but go ahead and get your rig out there and see what you can do.
Click to expand...

I would but it seems liberals have put a stop to drilling anyplace where there is oil .... but for arguments sake Let try opening up ANWR and see if any of the oil companies would bid on leases there.



Ask the Chinese who are taking over as the leader in the manufacture of alternative energy technology while we continue to rely on a depleting resource while our economy drowns in debt for wars to keep the oil supply flowing to us.
Click to expand...

So ? and once again you are just making the case for drilling for our own oil, if we didn't need to import it .. .we wouldn't be fighting wars for it correct ??
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Why aren't they developing all that green energy, if it's such a groovy idea?
Click to expand...

This administration has provided more funding for clean energy than any in history. It will not happen overnight. We probably shoudn't have waited 40 years to start you think?

If green energy is such a great idea, why isn't the private sector rushing to invest in it's production and creation of a market?
Click to expand...

Because to big business, short-term profits are paramont to societal needs or the environment, in short, greed.
 
The Barbarian said:
okay so you only answer is to conserve, and let us just run out of it in 4 years, sorry to me that just doesn't sound like good policy.
Click to expand...

What do you expect me to do about it? Carter had set up programs that would have had us independent of foreign oil today if Reagan hadn't scrapped it. If you want to blame someone, that is where the fault lies.





Safety has nothing to do with the permitting process, that is done through inspections in the field, and no one is suggesting that building regulations be reduced, just that the permitting process be streamlined to allow plants to begin construction, the inspections and regulations can and should be enforced during the construction process.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. I worked in pollution control and safety and environmental impacts feature prominently in the permitting process.

Then just put a product out their that the people want, the problem with electric cars, can't be fixed government hands outs, it's the public don't seem to like them.
Click to expand...

The public, despite warning from both parties in the government, the oil companies themselves, and the military, remain largely ignorant of the coming turmoil resulting from peak oil. A carrot (tax credits) seems more appropriate encouragement than a stick (economic hardship) I believe.


okay.. so liberals still control congress ... pass a law
Click to expand...

Democrats, not liberals, control one house of Congress.


I would but it seems liberals have put a stop to drilling anyplace where there is oil ....
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter as the oil companies say it is not a solution.

but for arguments sake Let try opening up ANWR and see if any of the oil companies would bid on leases there.
Click to expand...

Its not worth risking our largest natural wildlife reserve and global warming for one years worth of oil.
 
washunut said:
Just yesterday I heard Joe S. from MSNBC. Using his base he is jut about assured of victory as long as he holds it together. So he does not have to worry about picking up or losing a few states.
Click to expand...

A word comes to mind: fantasy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom