"Drill, Baby Drill" Not The Answer, Report Says

It has been confirmed in a new report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that the benefits of opening up and leasing protected federal lands for the development of oil and natural gas are next to nothing. The estimated profit would be as little as $500 million a year which is only 0.7% of the total gross take of revenue of $150 billion that is expected to be generated over the next decade from leases already in place.

A favorite cheer of the Republican party has been "drill baby drill." Some would now say that talking point has been proven impotent.

The analyzed issue was the opening of ANWR, The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and off-shore drilling sites between 5 and 200 miles away from both coasts. Certain parts of the Outer Continental Shelf were also included in the analysis.

http://www.examiner.com/article/cbo-rep ... nue-or-oil

I am sure the people of North Dakota who have seen wages double due to the oil rush there would disagree with your report that more oil drilling was a bad idea. California bans offshore drilling and is looking at 13% unemployment.

Of course, there's no provable connection between California's ban on offshore drilling and the unemployment numbers...Unless of course, you have a link?

Democracy4Sale wrote: Of course, there's no provable connection between California's ban on offshore drilling and the unemployment numbers...Unless of course, you have a link?

The economy of N. Dakota is a myth?

FredHayek wrote: California bans offshore drilling and is looking at 13% unemployment.

What part of "California" are you having trouble with?

Democracy4Sale wrote: Of course, there's no provable connection between California's ban on offshore drilling and the unemployment numbers...Unless of course, you have a link?

Plus the anti-drilling forces said it would take 10 years to see the results. Once again, Bismark says you don't know what you are talking about. 10 years? That sounds like the economic recovery plan. 10 years of unemployment and underemployment and record debt. And they want to give the man who spends more time on the View than answering questions from White House press conferences four more years.

FredHayek wrote: I am sure the people of North Dakota who have seen wages double due to the oil rush there would disagree with your report that more oil drilling was a bad idea.

They've also seen their cost of living, crime, assault on infrastructure and healthcare double.

Raees wrote:

FredHayek wrote: I am sure the people of North Dakota who have seen wages double due to the oil rush there would disagree with your report that more oil drilling was a bad idea.

They've also seen their cost of living, crime, assault on infrastructure and healthcare double.

Are people moving away from N. Dakota?

Are people moving away from California?

What does California have that N Dakota doesn't?

"Posted on August 18, 2012 by Steven Hayward in Economy

California Dreaming


I had to do a double take at the frontpage story in the Wall Street Journal a couple days ago with the headline “California’s Boom Masks State’s Uneven Recovery.” Boom??? What boom? What “recovery”? What are they smoking at the headline desk of the Journal? The story is deeply confused, saying in the lede that “California added jobs faster than the rest of the nation over the past year,” but then including the following chart that shows California gaining jobs “at a more sluggish pace” than the rest of the nation".......................



http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... er+Line%29