-Sooo, the question remains, why keep/lease/own all that land if they know it doesn’t have oil on it?

Maybe, they are helping increase the price of oil by sitting on proven reserves that they already have!!! Ya think????

NC writes: Ben Chandler, like his Democratic Party brethren, states that oil companies should be compelled to drill on land where exploration has demonstrated that there is no oil.

Ben Chandler writes in the LHL: “Even though these companies have 81 percent of all the known reserves in the United States, they refuse to extract the oil and natural gas they already control”.

-One of you guys are “confused”. ;o)

Thanks for all that extra info, it was interesting.

The companies must pay for the leases in advance. Thus, lots of land is leased (it remains under lease for years) and then reverts to the government … who doesn’t issue refunds. So , the money is put up ‘way before, and most leases are dry.

Quite the racket … And very misleading to all of us who think, wow, 68 million ( dry ) acres under lease and those bastardly capitalists are just waiting for the price to go up, or for a better opportunity to kill some innocent creatures. Not so.

In ANWR, for instance, the reserves are proven, but the drilling is forbidden. Same thing off the coast of Santa Barbara, California for instance…

Hope that helps a bit …

Best regards, NC …

-I think a better question would be: Why would a oil company want to own land where there is no oil? Stupid, wasteful capitalists. lol

Wow.

Hey, we’re in trouble! Do something useless and stupid. And, whatever you do, you lousy American capitalists, do NOT drill where the oil actually is.

The mind boggles … Obama ’08 … “Just say ‘No’”