*You want to know why your energy prices are high, and why we depend on foreign markets. This and our bend-over stance to the nationalization of our energy corporations abroad....oh, and our over-regulation in the refinery market. **Australia is one of the few modern nations that gets a majority of it's oil offshore. Just like Mexico it's very safe to do, despite the misinformation that people perceive about it. This is lame news, but I knew it would come. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060519/ap_on_go_co/congress_energy WASHINGTON - The House rejected an attempt late Thursday to end a quarter-century ban on oil and natural gas drilling in 85 percent of the country's coastal waters despite arguments that the new supplies are needed to lower energy costs. Lawmakers from Florida and California led the fight to maintain the long-standing drilling moratorium, contending that energy development as close as three miles from shore would jeopardize multibillion-dollar tourism industries. "It's a grievous assault on Florida and other (coastal) states," declared Rep. Adam Putnam (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., of attempts to end the drilling prohibitions that Congress first imposed in 1981 and has reaffirmed every year since. The moratorium bars oil and gas development in virtually all coastal waters outside the western Gulf of Mexico, where most of the country's offshore oil and gas wells are concentrated. A measure, offered by Putnam and Rep. Lois Capps (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., to continue the prohibition on drilling for natural gas — which some lawmakers argued was less of an environmental threat than oil — was approved 217-203 and inserted into a $25.9 billion Interior Department spending bill. Earlier, the House, by a 279-141 vote, rejected an attempt by Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, to lift the long-standing moratorium as it applies to oil drilling. The offshore drilling issue dominated much of the debate over the Interior spending legislation. The overall bill was approved 293-128 and sent to the Senate. Rep. John Peterson (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., argued that developing the offshore gas resources would produce none of the environmental risks — mainly the threat of a spill — associated with oil drilling. He won a victory when the drilling ban as it applies to natural gas was stripped from the Interior bill in committee. "This country has an energy crisis," said Peterson, arguing that access to supplies of gas beneath the waters of the country's outer continental shelf will help drive down the cost of the fuel used widely by industry and for home heating. "This is about the economy of America," said Peterson, noting that the chemical industry and makers of fertilizer as well as other industries are talking of moving operations overseas because of high U.S. natural gas prices. But lawmakers from Florida, California and other coastal states attacked the attempt to end a 25-year prohibition. They said an oil spill could devastate their states' economies, especially tourism. "Drilling for natural gas means drilling for oil," argued Capps, citing industry views that where there is gas, often oil is found and probably would be developed. "Drilling three miles off our coast will not lower gas prices today or anytime in the near future." Peterson insisted that lifting the congressional moratorium wouldn't mean drilling right away. A separate drilling ban on offshore areas outside the western Gulf has been put in place by President Bush and would not be affected by the congressional action, he said. But Capps said if Congress lifts its ban, there would be growing pressure on the White House to do the same. The House, by a 252-165, approved a measure that would bar oil companies from receiving new oil leases unless they renegotiate past contracts that allowed them to avoid federal royalty payments even when oil prices soar. The measure is aimed at correcting a mistake by the Interior Department that led to oil and gas lease contracts being issued in 1998-99 that allowed a suspension of royalty payments even after crude prices went beyond a set level. Since then, prices have soared well beyond that ceiling, but these companies still have been exempted from royalty payments, costing the government as much as $7 billion in lost revenues. The House directed the Interior Department to try to renegotiate those contracts. While it does not require oil companies to renegotiate, the measure would put pressure on them to do so, its supporters said. "Energy companies have been taking oil and gas from the American people for free and then selling it back to them at record prices," said Rep. Maurice Hinchey (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., sponsor of the amendment. In other action on the Interior bill, the House: • Approved a restriction on road-building in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. • Barred the Interior Department from selling wild horses for slaughter as part of its wild horse and burro adoption program. • Told the Environmental Protection Agency not to implement a 2003 directive the environmentalists contend reduces wetlands protection. Separately, an attempt to debate climate change — and for the first time bring up for a vote the idea of mandatory caps on greenhouse gases — was averted when a "sense of Congress" resolution on the subject was ruled out of order as part of the Interior spending bill. The climate provision offered by Rep. Norman Dicks (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., would have put lawmakers on record as agreeing that human actions were contributing to global warming and that carbon emissions into the atmosphere should be limited. The Senate approved a similar sentiment as part of an energy bill last year, but it was removed in negotiations with the House on the bill.
pisses me off that here in FL, Jeb got Bush to extend no-drilling off Florida and in the everglades. Everyone knows the gulf has huge deposits of oil in it. Heaven forbid we go get it. Other great ways to become energy self-sufficient. Cap the geysers at yellowstone park. How much free energy is released there each day? Old faithful would be a ton more useful as an energy source than a tourist attraction. Same in CA, steam vents would be a great way to get some free electricity as well.
In a sense your right...but...the cost/regulations/so forth.... (interesting read) http://www.abelard.org/briefings/fossil_fuel_replacements.htm#delivery_of_power Here is a brief assessment for the United States of America, by far the most extravagant user on the planet. The USA is currently burning 25% of the world’s energy usage, and doing this with about 1/20th of the world’s population. Of course, the USA also produces 20% plus of the world’s measured GDP ( Gross Domestic Product). But, as you will see, the USA is far from optimally energy-efficient. US total power consumption is in the region of 3 terawatts. (As usual, be careful of figures that look highly ‘accurate’; we are often guessing within, say, 10%.) A terawatt is one million (1,000,000) megawatts of power. In theory, one large coal or nuclear power plant generates 1,000 MW (1 gigawatt) of electricity. The present USA energy requirement, of 3 terawatts of power, is equivalent to the energy produced by about 3000 large (1000 megawatt) generating plants (i.e. three thousand ‘big power stations’). Recall that much of the input power to a country is burnt for heat and transport, only some of the power is used to generate electricity. In fact, only about one third of the input power to a country is used in the form of electricity. But the process of generating electric power is only approximately 38% efficient. That is, it requires just over two and a half times as much oil energy to produce the electric energy provided. ------------------------Continue on.... the USA will probably need to decide to generate seven times as much electricity as at present (that is eight times the present amount, minus the generating capacity we already have in place). You will see from the electricity usage and derivation table that the in-place capital generating plant of the USA is equivalent to 430 big power stations and, therefore, is worth about $430 billion. Seven times this figure, the price of the new plant required, is approximately $3 trillion. Now a power station may, at present, be expected to last approximately thirty years. Taking both our $430 billion and our $3 trillion, we are referring to a total of $3.5 trillion of plant, and replacing one-thirtieth of this each year, that is somewhat over $100 billion each and every year. The American economy runs at about $10 trillion a year, and growing. $100 billion is about one percent of the US GNP year in, year out. As can be seen, this is a very large project, but perfectly do-able. To emphasise the scale of this, it means, for example, the United States building 100 nuclear power stations each and every year, or Britain building ten each year. It has been recently announced (2003) that Germany intends to build the equivalent of 25 power stations, using wind power, by 2030. This is approximately half their present electricity generating capacity. For Germany to reach the level that I am estimating, would require the Germans to add approximately that capacity each and every year, not just once over 27 years. As you will see, this is no trivial project. You may work out similar figures for your own economy, by reference to the Fuel usage efficiency table. Remember, this is somewhat of a theoretical calculation. For example, we could make our power stations last for 40 years, and it is doubtful that we will attempt to replace all our transportable oil equivalent through electrical fabrication, but again I remind you that my purpose is to enable you to grasp the scale of the problems.