Tag: Offshore Drilling

No Vote On OffShore Oil

For weeks, pressure has been mounting in Congress to approve more domestic oil drilling, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has held the line, using her power to block a vote on offshore drilling.

President Bush has made almost daily calls for Democratic leaders to take action. House GOP leaders, citing a new poll showing that a slim majority of Californians now favor offshore drilling, issued a release today saying “even (Pelosi’s) own California neighbors oppose her efforts to block new drilling far off American coasts.” GOP lawmakers are so disgruntled they’re urging Bush to deny Congress its August break by calling a special session on energy.

Even some Democrats are getting antsy, fearing the party’s stance could hurt in the fall elections. But Pelosi, who has opposed offshore drilling throughout her two decades in Congress, insists opening new areas to drilling won’t lower gas prices in the short-term. She believes a vote would only help the GOP blame Democrats for high gas prices.

While I agree with Pelosi on this matter, because there are already 68 million acres of leases already.  Let the companies start there and then see if it will make a difference in the price of gas.  I doubt very seriously if it will and the whole clap trap about it is just that a shovel full of manure.

The Oil Mirage

I was sent this post in an email from a friend in New York.

If gasoline were selling for $2 a gallon today, President Bush’s decision to lift the ban on oil drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts most likely would have caused an uproar. But with gasoline at more than $4 a gallon, and seemingly rising every day, the response to Mr. Bush’s directive has been muted at best. At worst, it is drawing support from various circles, including Congress, as lawmakers react to the growing public alarm over energy costs.

But this is a time for responsible leadership, and Congress must rise to the occasion. It’s one thing for Mr. Bush to seize an opportunity to open more acreage to the oil companies. He’s been pro-exploration from the moment he entered the Oval Office. But it’s quite another for responsible members of Congress to start wavering on the issue of offshore drilling out of fear of voter backlash at home. They need to stand firm.

Increasing the supply of domestic oil is, at best, a feeble solution to a global energy crisis. Under Mr. Bush’s plan, oil companies would be able to drill for an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil pinpointed in areas now off limits to drilling. But even if such a rich source materialized and were tapped, there is no guarantee the oil would flow to the U.S. market. Instead, it would become part of the global oil supply and subject to the price fluctuations of global demand. Assuming there is no let-up in demand by China and India, the impact on prices would be minimal at best. Meanwhile, the U.S. coastal landscape would be degraded.

If only some lawmakers would talk bluntly about this issue. If only some of them would dare to say that even though $4-a-gallon gasoline is a burden on most family budgets, it is, in its own way, a blessing as well. The higher cost of fuel has made Americans more conservation conscious. It has all but driven the gas-guzzling SUV into extinction. It has increased ridership on mass transit systems. It has made cities more attractive for workers to live in, and the suburbs, along with their daily commutes, less attractive. If that trend continues, suburban and ex-urban sprawl may at last be curbed.

Then there are the health benefits. If Americans drive less and burn less fuel, the air will be cleaner and there will be fewer respiratory ailments. And there are economic benefits. Fewer cars means less wear and tear on the infrastructure, and thus less cost for maintenance and repair.

Congress can make these points, and more, by refusing to go along with Mr. Bush and lift the drilling moratorium. That is to say, Congress must act responsibly even if Mr. Bush refuses to do so.

Are The Chinese Drilling Off Of Cuba?

This was echoed many times after the McCain proposal to open up the US Coastline for drilling.  But is it true?  This from Factcheck.org:

No. George Will and Vice President Cheney got that wrong. But Cuba has allowed for exploration by at least six other non-Chinese firms in the region and onshore testing and exploration by China’s Sinopec.

While it’s true that as many as 4.6 billion barrels of oil and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas may lie off Cuba’s coast, no country, including China, is drilling for a drop of it. But on June 11, in a speech to the board of directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Vice President Dick Cheney claimed, citing columnist George Will, that the Chinese were drilling 60 miles off the coast of Florida:


 Cheney: As for other locations, George Will pointed out in his column the other day that oil is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida. But we’re not doing it, the Chinese are, in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply.

Cheney was right about one thing: George Will wrote in his June 5 column that “[d]rilling is underway 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are.” But the substance of Cheney’s and Will’s claim is false, according to independent experts, diplomats in the region and elected officials whose states could potentially have been affected by such a deal.

Cuba has leased exploration blocks to foreign companies for areas as close as 60 miles off Florida’s southern coast. A 2006 New York Times article said China was one of the countries that had negotiated an offshore lease. But experts quoted recently by The Associated Press say none of the companies involved are Chinese and all are only allowed to explore for now, not drill in the region. Another exploration deal was announced between Brazil’s state oil company, Petrobras, and Cuba. The deal would allow Petrobras to explore in Cuba’s offshore territories in the Gulf of Mexico, with a potential drilling start-date in two years.

On June 11, the McClatchy Washington bureau reported that China has entered into a deal with Cuba for potential onshore drilling west of Havana. McClatchy also reported that Florida Republican Sen. Mel Martinez said a deal between China and Cuba for offshore drilling is “akin to urban legend.”

Global Warming And National Security

This is one way to make global warming a prime program for funding–looks like an extension of the well used fear card.

Global warming is likely to increase illegal immigration, create humanitarian disasters and destabilize precarious governments and could add to terrorism, all of which could threaten U.S. national security, according to an assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies.

“Logic suggests the conditions exacerbated (by climate change) would increase the pool of potential recruits for terrorism,” said Tom Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence for analysis, who testified before a joint House committee hearing Wednesday.

Climate change alone would not topple governments, but it could worsen problems like poverty, disease, migration, and hunger that could destabilize already vulnerable areas, Fingar told the committee.

But he warned that efforts to reduce global warming by changing energy policies “may affect U.S. national security interests even more than the physical impacts of climate change itself,” he stated.

“The operative word there is ‘may,’ we don’t know,” Fingar said.

“Climate change will provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror,” stated Adm. T. Joseph Lopez, who commanded U.S. and allied peacekeeping forces in Bosnia in 1996.

“Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies,” the previous report said. “The U.S. will be drawn more frequently into these situations,” stated the report, which drew on 11 retired generals and admirals.

California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa said Congress’ call for the intelligence agencies’ report was “a dangerous diversion of intelligence assets.” He said the issue should be studied by climate scientists, not intelligence agencies.

Republicans on the committee used the hearing to argue for domestic oil drilling and nuclear power to reduce reliance on foreign energy.

Amazing how they trot out this after the calls for more offshore drilling.  I ask, if the proposal had not been made, would this report have been released?

Drilling For The Sake Of Drilling

With gasoline prices topping $4 a gallon, President Bush is asking Congress to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, saying the United States needs to produce more of the energy it uses.

Motorists want something to be done about the record price of oil, much of which is produced in other countries. “Families across the country are looking to Washington for a response,” Bush said.

Drilling for oil and gas off nearly the entire American coastline has been banned for the past quarter-century. Previous efforts to lift the ban have been met with strong opposition. Lawmakers last debated oil drilling in the U.S. coastal areas in 2005 and 2006, when gasoline averaged $1.84 a gallon.

This is hysteria speaking, everyone wants relief, but where will the relief be? They, most likely oil companies and their puppets, say it will reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Maybe so, but not our dependency on oil and there is where the problem is, not where it comes from.

Ask who will benefit the most from this drilling, you or the oil companies? Why would drilling in the US bring the cost of oil down? Do you really think that the oil companies are gonna give up massive profits so that the consumer can have cheaper gas? You really want to wean yourself off foreign oil, then the person needs to do that, the government is only concerned with the bottom line of the corporations, not the good of the people.

Democrats also claim that land already leased is “sitting idle,” and should be used before any new exploration begins. As put by Maurice Hinchey, a senior member of the House Resources Committee, Big Oil is “trying to take control of as much land now during the oil-friendly Bush Administration years, but are holding off on drilling until the price of oil soars to $200 or $300 a barrel so they can make even greater profits.”

This is a lame attempt to silence the public outcry. Americans will settle down and adjust to the higher prices. If they truly wanted something done then they would have demanded it back in the late 70’s.