*It always find itself in trouble in the Senate. Curious, what are the legit arguements against offshore oil drilling? Keeping in mind that it's evolved a lot and countries such as Australia do it intensly and safely.... ? curious. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/ap_on_go_co/offshore_drilling WASHINGTON - Congress has taken a major step toward allowing oil and gas drilling in coastal waters that have been off limits for a quarter-century. Still, a battle looms in the Senate over the issue. And the Bush administration's support for the legislation, which was approved Thursday by a 232-187 vote in the House, is lukewarm. The House bill would end an Outer Continental Shelf drilling moratorium that Congress has renewed every year since 1981. It covers 85 percent of the country's coastal waters — everywhere except the central and western Gulf of Mexico and some areas off Alaska. Rep. Richard Pombo (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., a leading proponent for lifting the ban, said he believes a majority of the Senate wants to open the protected waters to energy companies. Asked about White House opposition to some parts of the bill, especially a provision that would give tens of billions of dollars to states that have drilling rigs off their coasts, Pombo said, "I dare them to veto this bill." "They don't like us giving money back to the states. I think it's right," Pombo told reporters after the vote. Forty Democrats joined most Republicans in favor of ending the drilling moratorium. In the Senate, the measure is likely to face a filibuster from Florida senators and possibly others from coastal states that fear offshore energy development could threaten multibillion-dollar tourist and recreation businesses if there were a spill. The Senate is considering a limited measure that would open an area in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, known as Lease Area 181, that comes within 100 miles of Florida. It is not under the moratorium. Even that is unlikely to pass unless its sponsors get 60 votes to overcome a filibuster from the Floridians. Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he would pursue efforts to open the Lease 181 Area. The committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (news, bio, voting record), also of New Mexico, criticized the House-passed bill, saying it would eventually create "a huge hole in our federal budget and undermine environmental protections on our lands and off our coasts." Sen. Mary Landrieu (news, bio, voting record), D-La., said Friday that Senate GOP leaders and Domenici have agreed on a new revenue-sharing plan that would funnel 37.5 percent of future royalties from Area 181 development to the four energy producing Gulf states, and also open an additional 6.3 million acres south of Area 181. But that proposal does not address the Florida senators' concerns and may generate new opposition to Domenici's bill from senators opposed to changing the royalty distribution formulas. Domenici later said in a statement, "I've had a number of productive meetings with Sen. Landrieu. ... We've made progress ... but we're not there yet." Still, the House vote was a huge victory for Pombo, two Louisiana lawmakers — Republican Bobby Jindal and Democrat Charlie Melancon — and Rep. John Peterson (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., who spearheaded the drive to lift the moratorium. Only six weeks ago, a proposal by Peterson to open coastal waters to natural gas development fell 14 votes short. This time, they included a provision that would allow states to keep the moratorium in place if they opposed drilling and changed the revenue sharing so that states' share of royalties would soar eventually as much as 75 percent. The Gulf states where most U.S. offshore energy resources are being tapped, now get less than 5 percent of the royalties. For example, Louisiana's royalties would go from $32 million last year to a total of $8.6 billion over the next 10 years — and even higher after that. The Interior Department estimated that the changes could cost the federal government as much as $69 billion in lost royalties over 15 years and "several hundred billion dollars" over 60 years. The White House issued a statement saying it favors much of the bill but strongly opposes the changes in royalty revenue sharing, which it said "would have a long-term impact on the federal deficit." The Interior Department estimates there are about 19 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 86 trillion cubic feet of natural gas beneath waters under drilling bans from New England to southern Alaska. Supporters of the drilling moratorium argue there's four times that amount of oil and gas available in offshore waters open to energy companies, mainly in the central and western Gulf of Mexico and off parts of Alaska. ___ On the Net: Interior Department Minerals Management Service: http://www.mms.gov/revaldiv/RedNatAssessment.htm
So this means possible lower oil prices, right? There's plenty of ocean if there's a small leak, no big deal... I'm glad they allow this now.
always pissed me off that Jeb got George to ban off shore drilling here in florida. Its estimated that there is a ton of oil in the gulf just waiting to be found.
That those drilling rigs out in the Gulf of Mexico are good for fishing. Never understood why so many coastal states are against drilling. Brings money, jobs, etc to the local areas. Of course, Cuba is pissing off Florida by getting bids, etc to put drilling rigs withing Cuban waters and darn close to FLorida.
Interesting read. This is an area I've had interest in, but not explored a lot. While you are looking for legit arguments against this, I have a number of questions on this topic I'd like to tap your thoughts on, if you wouldn't mind?
No, not necessarily. It always passes the house, but the senate has to take a look at it, and it seems it always has a problem there. Although for some reason this might have a chance...given how it's state driven, it might catch the greed in people. Lots of money for the states bordering that ocean. I believe we should be able to drill, but I believe it should be done wisely and in a sense that enviroment is important. It's really not what people portray it as...here's something to look at. http://earthsci.org/mineral/energy/gasexpl/offshore.html
Read the article I just posted, and ask away. I'm by no means an expert on this, but my interests have a great deal to do with energy. And since we're dealing with reality, we need to deal with it as-is.
I think its a matter of oil spills , destroying beachs wildlife, tourism etc its stupid it will take like 20 years to build the wells, and its temporary bandaid on a problem that is huge
Fears that in current history (and technology) are unfounded. It may have a been a reputable reason in offshore drillings hay-days. Santa Barbara had a problem with that back in the days, but time has changed and people aren't paying attention. "The industry's safety record is impressive, and it's even possible that the drilling ban increases the danger of oil spills in coastal waters: Less local drilling means more incoming traffic from oil tankers, which by some reckonings are riskier. Although balancing energy needs with the environment is always hard, the prohibition on offshore extraction cannot be justified." Seismic imaging has greatly reduced the search time. Oil Platform technology is changing so fast that building time is incredibly reduced, and even some suggest we won't even have platform but something like this. http://www.ntnu.no/gemini/2000-06e/36-37.htm You're speaking of old technology and time, if that. Primarily it will have more effect on gas prices (since most of gas prices are effected domestically and through Canada), but it's silly to say that 19+ billion barrels of oil or 86+ trillion cubic feet of gas is neligible. Australia gets 90% of their domestic oil offshore (Mexico also a great example), and there's plenty of it offshore here. We can't live in a fantasy world,...we have to live practical as-is, but seek the alternatives as well. Prices aren't going to plummet and may potentially rise a lot (so R&D in alternatives is here to stay),... we need to cover all ends of the deal. I'd be curious to know how much oil we would have recovered durning that long period of time, and if we'd still be on even grounds as far as production rate go.....?
*Interesting to note where the plateau fell. A rather important part of history is the brief era where the collapse (or rather steep decline) of oil consumption due to Russia's change...led to a rather comforting position in oil prices and a false sense that things weren't getting worse as far as domestic energy production goes. That consequently ended 1999, where it went back to where had been. **Our country leaders have made a willful chose (that or they lack vision), to give into foreign oil producers, and frankly they've done everything to stop domestic production. Anyone willing to continue down this suicidal path is asking for it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'd thought I would add this (for above): The chart shows > U.S. oil consumption has climbed to a record high (black line on chart) - - to 7.6 billion barrels per year (20.7 million daily) Meanwhile, U.S. oil production (red line on chart) declined to a 55-year low (since 1950 when America had 144 million fewer citizens) - - to just 1.9 billion barrels per year (5.2 million daily) - - resulting in a 75% consumption-to-production gap (inventory adjustments not shown) - - requiring soaring imports from other nations (blue line on chart) - - while reserves of import sources decline. Meanwhile, U.S. oil reserves are declining, with 4-10 years remaining if feasible to use every known drop - - and no alternatives appear close to filling much of the increasing gap. Additionally - - U.S. natural gas production has flattened, reserves are falling and imports are rising. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider this > With record trade deficits and declining manufacturing one would expect U.S. oil consumption to be steadily declining, since more and more goods consumed in the U.S. are created with energy from other nations. But, consumption continues to rise. Additionally, average fuel efficiency in 2004 was 6% less than 20 years ago for personal autos and trucks. 50 years ago America produced half the world’s oil and was a net exporter of oil, yet today cannot produce even half its needs
oil platforms lately have a had a great record on spills, but unless you are going to teleport it to the mainland most likely along the way there will be spills, ecspecially if a hurricane is involved, in katrina something like 140,000 gallons was spilled Thats from the white house website The price of oil is set globally, even if we pump some more out of florida its not going to effect the price much, do you really think energy companies are going to be trying to give the consumers deals, because of slightly more reserves. The way I see it is this, as much as I know its fun to fish the oil platforms, the ocean is everyones, as in we all have as much right to as each other. In florida there are many lives that depend on tourist industy, which is dependent on the ocean. Boating , fishing, diving , beaches hotels etc By drilling more you are in a sense risking many peoples livelyhoods for the enrichment of the few, namely the companies that pump the oil. The price at the pump isn't going to change but a few peoples wealth will.
Rick, sorry for the delay in my questions, I've been taking on a half dozen moonbats at a time in other threads. They may be more of some general observations, but also questions. I'm glad this is finally moving forward, but as I understand, is not completely passed yet. Have you seen any information regarding the oversight of this, if it passes in final stage? That would be my concern. I read the royalty notes, but can't say I completely understand them. Though as an individual, whatever my thought is here will not count, I would feel a lot better if this were a short term solution to protect our current dependencies on oil. But not long term. I watched with interest, a documentary by Thomas Friedman (allright, no wisecracks here from my conservative friends!) oddly enough called "Addicted to Oil" the other night. I take what he says with a grain of salt, however, he did note some very interesting programs currently underway for alternative fuel sources. It was enough to make me think, I'll say that much! He did note an interesting observation from a GM exec, in that they have pursued electric based cars, but they failed miserably in market. He said that while many talk about them, when they actually brought them to market, they lost money because the interest wasn't there, but that there was continued demand for large SUVs. I can understand that. No company would want to go bankrupt over delivering a product that no one wants to buy. My concern is that I hope this lift on drilling is for relatively short timer 10-30 years, to ensure we DO have adequate supplies of oil in the short term, while we work towards more modern energy methods. Another concern I have, is the oversight of such a program. Obviously gas *should* be cheaper (at least I would think), but the last thing I want to see is oil companies getting richer and/or abusing this. I would think there would have to be some tight regulations and mechanisms to assure the American people that oil companies were not taking advantage. Likewise, that states (and I believe the royalties cover this) would benefit greatly from allowing such drilling. Anyway, those were basically my thoughts and after seeing this is something you take interest in, was hoping you could shed some thoughts.
Katrina did a lot bad things, I'd assume such. We're one of the few countries that doesn't like the idea. Canada, Australia, the UK...and about everyone else does it normally. I'm aware of that, but we're talking about losing all our domestic production within a short period of time. We need time to move to other forms of energy/technology, we can't just hope for the best. Some say 4-10 years are left to drill domestically, while they assume the oil offshore is 4-12 years worth. So saying we shouldn't drill new oil is like saying we shouldn't deal with the domestic oil we drill now. It's not unvaluable, it gives us a decent amount of time to convert to other energy source, and lets us stay independent of foreign governments. I have high hopes for butanol, personally...given the technology that seems to be going on in it. But even that will take time. What will happen when we no-longer produce oil domestically, and we're not yet ready for shift to other forms of energy? We'll depend fully on foreign powers, with only Canada to fully trust in all of this. I'm sorry, that's just not acceptable. It's not about the oil companies,...honestly no one care about them. But we can't just import oil (while producing none) from Mexico, Canada, Russia, Venezuela and the middle east...with full comfort. Do you really trust all of them? I mean opec, which makes up a bulk of them, has a deep dislike of the US.
It would involve the consent of the senate or atleast a comprimise ie a conference. The debate is whom would get the money...the states or the federal government. I find it a bit confusing as well, but it does seem to be perceived by upper government as problem. And yes, we have to move to other alternatives...biodiesel look like the best alternatives. There's a lot of movement within ethanol and butanol. Keep an eye on these two chemicals. Then for power...there's the ultimate dream of cold or hot fusion...and even hot fusion is moving forward...slowly. Good.... I believe GM has huge problems, and needs to start reconciling it's mismanagement and structural problems. I hate SUV's personally, and I think most Americans need to be realistic or they're headed towards some real problems. It would most likely not effect us that dramatically. It would give us more time to exist with out foreign powers dominating our energy industry. Personally, there's a lot of assertions that the oil companies are evil, and that they're gouging us...I'd look at the specifics of what makes unleaded cost what it costs...it's much more complicated than the evil oil company. There's a good chart I poster here sometime ago, if I find it I'll post it.