Jump to content

Dems Block Drilling!


RufusJones

Recommended Posts

FOX NEWS

House Subcommittee Rejects Plan to Open U.S. Waters to More Oil Exploration

    • WASHINGTON — A House subcommittee has rejected a Republican-led effort to open up more U.S. coastal waters to oil exploration.
Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., spearheaded the effort. His proposal would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.

 

But the plan failed Wednesday on a 9-6, party-line vote in a House appropriations subcommittee, which was considering the proposal as part of an Interior Department spending package.

 

With record oil prices and gas prices projected to hover around the $4 mark for the rest of the summer, Republicans have ratcheted up their efforts to open up oil exploration along U.S. coastline. But the long-sought change has so far been unsuccessful.

 

Most offshore oil production and exploration has been banned since a federal law passed in 1981.

 

"We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of these problems," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., said during the bill mark-up session.

 

<script type=text/javascript _extended="true"> /**/ For his part, Peterson said: "There is no valid reason for Congress to keep the country from energy resources it needs."

 

According to Peterson's office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.

 

Peterson is not alone in his desire to open up the shelf. An effort to unlock the resources has been underway in Congress in recent years, and several interest groups are backing the effort, too.

 

"Tapping America's huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on gasoline prices," Greg Schnacke, President of Americans for American Energy, said in a news release, adding: "With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS should be developed."

 

But the proposal has faced staunch opposition from environmental groups from states where the shorelines are under consideration for drilling, like Florida.

 

Sierra Club lands program director Athan Manuel told a House committee Wednesday that drilling has been unsuccessful in driving costs down.

 

"The disappointing part about some of the energy policies being promoted (is) that it calls for more drilling when drilling really is the problem. And all we've got to show for pretty aggressive (domestic) drilling for the last 35 years is, again, $4 for a gallon of gas," Manuel said, adding "since the first Arab oil shock in the 1970s, the U.S. has produced almost 90 billion barrels of oil since then, so we've tried drilling our way out of the problem and it just hasn't worked."

 

Environment Florida spokeswoman Holly Binns told the Media General news group that offshore drilling has no immediate impact on prices.

 

"It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply," Binns said, advocating renewable energy sources.

 

Democrats are holding their own series of events on Capitol Hill Wednesday to focus attention on global warming and energy independence, but drilling is not on the agenda. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday ongoing calls for more drilling "is the Johnny One-Note of the Republican Party."

 

Not surprisingly, the issue has spilled into the ream of presidential politics as well.

 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., criticized Democrats, including fellow Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., over recent comments Obama made regarding gas prices.

 

The comments that McConnell referred to were given during an interview with CNBC. Discussing rising gasoline prices, Obama said: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.

 

Obama also said that "if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly U.S. automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now.

 

McConnell, honing in on Obama's referral to "gradual" price increases, said Obama's remarks are evidence that Obama believes "rising gas prices aren't the problem. The problem, he suggested, is that they've gone up too fast. He said he would prefer a gradual adjustment."

 

He continued: "Whether it's shutting down domestic exploration in large areas both onshore and offshore, instituting a moratorium on oil shale development, increasing the gas tax, or refusing to pursue coal to liquids, Democrats long ago implemented a 'gradual adjustment' on gas prices that's reflected today in the $4.05 Americans are paying for a gallon of gas."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bleeds

Why is it when you start talking about becoming energy self-sufficient to democrats, they always counter with "It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply," ?

 

Well guess what, waiting is not going to make that time go by any faster.

 

"We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of these problems," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., said during the bill mark-up session.

 

I was just wondering, is chairman Obey a geologist, or a petroleum engineer? No. He is a liberal politician with an astute understanding of the concept that tells us if everything is going well, gas prices lower, inflation in check, he has nothing to beat conservatives over the head with, and thus he has no platform.

 

As I have said all along, remember why it cost you $10.00 to drive to the polling place in November and vote accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I hate this, we can't soley place blame on Democrats. The Republicans had control for over 6 years with Bush in the Whitehouse. It's everybody's fault. So let's stop blaming one group, and pay attention to which politicians are actually working for the people. When voting comes around, like Bleeds said, "vote accordingly."

 

By the way, regardless of how long it will take before we can bring the sources to shore, there is no time like the present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bleeds
As much as I hate this, we can't soley place blame on Democrats. The Republicans had control for over 6 years with Bush in the Whitehouse. It's everybody's fault. So let's stop blaming one group, and pay attention to which politicians are actually working for the people. When voting comes around, like Bleeds said, "vote accordingly."

 

By the way, regardless of how long it will take before we can bring the sources to shore, there is no time like the present.

 

The democrats could have done something about his now, and chose not to. We can assess blame for what did or didn't happen in the past, but this is now. Now is the time to open up drilling and the democrats have said no.

 

Seems crystal clear to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The democrats could have done something about his now, and chose not to. We can assess blame for what did or didn't happen in the past, but this is now. Now is the time to open up drilling and the democrats have said no.

 

Seems crystal clear to me.

 

The answer is rather obvious. If the Dems allowed more drilling, gas costs would fall and many Americans would feel less vulnerable. Dems like having people vulnerable, that way they can exert their power over people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is rather obvious. If the Dems allowed more drilling, gas costs would fall and many Americans would feel less vulnerable. Dems like having people vulnerable, that way they can exert their power over people.

 

 

ding, ding, ding.......we have a winner!

 

That is EXACTLY what the dems want. The more helpless people are, the more they need the government for survival. Kinda sounds like slavery doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were the CEO of an oil company, I would go ahead and drill anyway--test the system see what the government will do, if nothing else you would create a P.R. nightmare for the government.

 

Additionally, I would go ahead and build new refineries. As you know, another part of the problem is that we don't have enough refineries. If you have the right P.R. people in your company you could spin any government action towards stopping your refinery building as pure socialism.

 

Like a Constitutional law professor I had taught us, laws are only good if they are enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bleeds
The answer is rather obvious. If the Dems allowed more drilling, gas costs would fall and many Americans would feel less vulnerable. Dems like having people vulnerable, that way they can exert their power over people.

 

 

Misery seeks solutions. Dems offer hand outs as solutions. Hand outs buy votes. So, the more miserable democrats are, the longer their congressional "representatives" can stay in power.

 

I've said this forever.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were the CEO of an oil company, I would go ahead and drill anyway--test the system see what the government will do, if nothing else you would create a P.R. nightmare for the government.

 

Additionally, I would go ahead and build new refineries. As you know, another part of the problem is that we don't have enough refineries. If you have the right P.R. people in your company you could spin any government action towards stopping your refinery building as pure socialism.

 

Like a Constitutional law professor I had taught us, laws are only good if they are enforced.

 

:thumbsup: I agree we need to build some more refineries, but we could also update those refineries that are closed down and get them running again. There is one over in Mt. Pleasant or close by, I can't really remember maybe someone else does. The other point how do we know that the current refineries are running at max output, the only source is the oil companies themselves, wouldn't surprise me if they are operating at 70% or less who would know? And if we don't start some of our own drilling of the coast of the U.S., we won't have to worry long because China with help from Cuba is already drilling of the coast of Florida! What is the Sierra Club doing about that? Absolutely nothing, just so long as we don't do it all the tree huggers are happy! :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bleeds

^According to refinery officials, they are operating at about 80-85% capacity. And in fact, have said if volumn doesn't increase, they will have to increase their refinery fees in order to continue to make money.

 

Still, that doesn't lessent the need for more refineries. More refineries means competition and back up in case of a refinery explosion/fire etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that gets me is if Bubba hadn't vetoed drilling ANWR in 1995 or so, we'd be getting the oil from there right about now........

 

And to think that Bubba and Hillaryous ran their platforms on representing "the working family." :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sideliner

If we would have started in 1995 we would not reach real production until 2013 and full production until 2025.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bleeds
If we would have started in 1995 we would not reach real production until 2013 and full production until 2025.

 

 

I don't know if that is true or not. The only ones I have ever heard that from are liberals. They have a tendancy to play fast and loose with the facts as they pertain to oil, etc.

 

But let me ask you this SL, are we any closer to getting that oil out of the ground than we were in 1995? Will delaying drilling get that oil out of the ground any quicker?

 

The "It will take too long to get it to do any good" has become the liberal mantra in response to cries to drill. And quite frankly, I don't know of a more ridiculous, more sophomoric, more "head stuck in the sand" response.

 

Wouldn't drilling help us in the long run? Must we focus on immediate satisfaction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sideliner

Drilling would help. We should start now. Blaming it on Democrats is #$@^&. The republicans controlled the House, Senate and the presidency for six years and did NOTHING! They shoulder the blame also.

 

 

P.S. They had options to break a filibuster so please don't use that as an excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bleeds
Drilling would help. We should start now. Blaming it on Democrats is #$@^&. The republicans controlled the House, Senate and the presidency for six years and did NOTHING! They shoulder the blame also.

 

 

P.S. They had options to break a filibuster so please don't use that as an excuse.

 

 

Just heard a guy on the news say America missed the opportunity to relieve the burden of dependence on foreign oil by not drilling in ANWR and off the CS decades ago. Clinton closed ANWR. Since then, the environmental lobby has made it impossible to build refineries.

 

A majority in Congress does not always assure passage of bills, as Tom Daschle and his obstructionists made clear during the days of the Republican majority. More than one bill was dead in committee because of his and other dems' wrangling.

 

You say we should be drilling now. We would be if it weren't for your libs blocking it. On the same interview, the democratic Congressman leading the charge against drilling gives as his main purpose for not wanting drilling, profits for oil companies.

 

It is a sad day when the nation's petroleum needs are overlooked because some liberal in Congress is afraid an oil company is going to make some money by drilling. NEWS FLASH! That's what oil companies do.

 

Yes, we can blame Democrats. They have passed on the latest opportunity to finally make advances in our own energy independence. Until they stop making this a political issue and recognize this for what it is, they are indeed to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest imyahuckleberry

Bleeds, your going to have to quit giving them FACTS.

 

Smoke and Mirrors are the only thing they comprehend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bleeds

I wish I could remember the Congressman's name in the interview. He said there was no way we could drill our way out of this situation, and again cited oil company profits. He kept saying we needed to be exploring alternative fuels. The interviewer agreed that we needed to be looking into alternatives, but suggested maybe we could do both at the same time. Congressman No-Drill would have no part of that.

 

Now, how narrow-minded is it to pooh-pooh drilling while exploring alternatives?

 

We are placing ourselves in what could be the worst national security predicament in the history of this country by not allowing drilling wherever the resource exists in enough quantities to warrant it. ANWR presents those quantities. Offshore continental shelf areas present those quantities. Hell, China is drilling closer to the US than we are allowed to. What's wrong with that picture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sideliner
What's really sad about this whole mess is that John "My Friends" McCain is as clueless as the tree huggin, liberal idiots! If he would make this an issue..he wins in Nov. But he won't! Idiot!

 

 

Maybe you should call him and tell him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sideliner
Just heard a guy on the news say America missed the opportunity to relieve the burden of dependence on foreign oil by not drilling in ANWR and off the CS decades ago. Clinton closed ANWR. Since then, the environmental lobby has made it impossible to build refineries.

 

A majority in Congress does not always assure passage of bills, as Tom Daschle and his obstructionists made clear during the days of the Republican majority. More than one bill was dead in committee because of his and other dems' wrangling.

 

You say we should be drilling now. We would be if it weren't for your libs blocking it. On the same interview, the democratic Congressman leading the charge against drilling gives as his main purpose for not wanting drilling, profits for oil companies.

 

It is a sad day when the nation's petroleum needs are overlooked because some liberal in Congress is afraid an oil company is going to make some money by drilling. NEWS FLASH! That's what oil companies do.

 

Yes, we can blame Democrats. They have passed on the latest opportunity to finally make advances in our own energy independence. Until they stop making this a political issue and recognize this for what it is, they are indeed to blame.

 

 

As I said, there are ways around a filibuster one of which you guys threatened one time. The N-Option remember. Six years and did nothing. Republicans are partially responsible no matter how you try to spin it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bleeds
Maybe you should call him and tell him.

 

 

Maybe I will.

 

Pundits are already saying if he will make this an issue, he is a shoe-in to win. But what the heck to they know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, there are ways around a filibuster one of which you guys threatened one time. The N-Option remember. Six years and did nothing. Republicans are partially responsible no matter how you try to spin it.

 

Yes they are! Some R's and a whole slew of D's are responsible. We should take all those guys out and shoot 'em for not doing the right thing! Now how can you advocate for BHO or anyone else who has no intention of doing the right thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there might be a glimmer of hope on the horizon. I was accidentally watching Good Morning America this morning (my wife turned it on and I couldn't find the remote), and I heard Diane Sawyer gleefully announce that oil could be processed from shale, and we had plenty of it. Of course, this has been common knowledge among the informed talk radio listeners for years, but to the great unwashed I suppose it must have been quite a revelation.

 

This announcement can mean only one thing: The DNC must have sent the mainstream media heads an announcement and told them to let the word go forth. This announcement, coupled with the revelation that Uncle Sam was going to allow petroleum geologists to "bother" polar bears tells me that the lefties know they can't hogtie Big Oil much longer without outright revolt from the masses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...