Lift the Offshore Drilling Ban

National Review: It Would Signal That The U.S. Is Serious About Increasing Domestic Production

(National Review Online)  This column was written by The Editors.

---

John McCain is finally starting to exploit Barack Obama's weakness on the energy issue. With gasoline topping $4 per gallon, McCain reversed his stance on offshore drilling and called for Congress to lift a 27-year-old moratorium on coastal energy exploration. With this shift, McCain has put himself on the same side as two-thirds of the American people, according to a recent poll. Obama, meanwhile, has said that he "would have preferred a gradual adjustment" toward $4 per gallon gasoline, but otherwise he seems amenable to it - as we would be, if that $4 price reflected market conditions instead of government restriction of the energy supply.

Lifting the ban on offshore drilling won’t increase supply right away, but would signal to oil speculators that the U.S. is serious about increasing domestic production, long smothered under regulatory and tax practices that discourage exploration and the expansion of our refining capacity. That could immediately put downward pressure on the price of oil and alone would do more to reduce the price at the pump than anything Barack Obama has proposed. But McCain should go even further.

He remains opposed to drilling in a miniscule section of the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), and so far he hasn’t said anything about oil shale, a type of oil-producing rock found in abundance on federal lands in the Western U.S. Although the price of traditional crude will have to rise even more before shale becomes a viable alternative, it is worth considering given the trajectory of the market. On this, McCain should look to President Bush, who gave a speech Wednesday calling on Congress to lift the offshore drilling ban, reiterated his longstanding support for drilling in ANWR, and asked Congress to repeal a ban on oil-shale leasing on federal lands.

The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that drilling offshore could produce as much as 86 billion barrels of oil. Drilling in ANWR - which would only affect approximately 2,000 of its 19 million acres - could supply 5 percent of America’s oil each year for 12 years before it starts to decline, according to Energy Department estimates. And though there are barriers to their exploitation, oil-shale deposits in the Western U.S. could yield up to 800 billion barrels - three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia.

To his credit, McCain has been touting nuclear power, and wants to streamline the permitting process for new plants. But he continues to plug for “energy independence” as if it’s a revolutionary policy, when it has been a standard Washington promise since the Nixon administration and remains a chimera. He foolishly talks of wind, solar, and tide as if they are viable near-term substitutes for fossil fuels. And he feels compelled to condemn the “obscene” profits of the oil and gas industry, as if it were responsible for the increased prices - set by a global market - for its products.

McCain should realize that anti-business demagoguery is a Democrat’s game. Indeed, the most ambitious energy proposal we’ve seen from Obama so far is a punitive new tax on oil companies, intended to produce pain rather than revenue. In reality, a “windfall” profits tax would function as a tax on investors in oil companies, including many pension plans and retirement funds. The Congressional Research Service found that the last time Congress imposed such a tax, it reduced domestic production by discouraging investment in oil companies. It also puts the government in the business of deciding what profits are acceptable, which is itself unacceptable.

Americans favor increasing - not reducing, or making more expensive - energy production. We’re glad McCain has taken a step in that direction.

[questionnews]

Here in the very green city of Portland in the very blue state of Oregon the polls are running at about 62% in favor of lifting the ban. Surprised me big time!

[gkc99]

Polls conducted by the Portland Business Journal?

[gkc99]

Start drilling in the backyards of Victor Davis Handjob and of the precious Rick Lowry.

[questionnews]

Polls conducted by the Portland Business Journal?

Posted by gkc99 at 02:51 PM : Jun 19, 2008

KGW-TV--Obviously not scentific but still a surprising result. Normally they end up being fairly accurate.

[samthetvcat]

---"Here in the very green city of Portland in the very blue state of Oregon the polls are running at about 62% in favor of lifting the ban. Surprised me big time!"---
Posted by Questionnews

Is it maybe because the GOP make it sound like we''ve got 3x as much oil as the Saudis and that it''s regulations that are standing in the way, when in fact the oil isn''t liquid it''s in rock form which is cost prohibitive to refine into gas?

Or is it because nobody''s told them that there aren''t any KNOWN deposits of oil except for ANWR, it''s only geologist predictions that have predicted our deposits to be worth only about 2 years worth of US gas consumption?

Or is it that the editors failed to mention that even for the known gas deposit up in Alaska, it would take 10 years to get to the gas, and even then it would only ever lower the cost of a fill up by 40 cents after 20 years?

I''m open to considering all our options, but to make it sound like we could ever become energy dependent from the middle east based on our own supply is as deceptive as when they were claiming that we needed to invade Iraq ASAP! Urgent, urgent!!!!! I''ll bet the polls showed people about 62% in favor of that too given the info they were getting at the time . . . the NRO is sickening . . .

[samthetvcat]

PS Rallying cry of the GOPigs - we need gas URGENTLY!!!!! Let us invade, let us drill, whatever it takes!

[questionnews]

SamTheTVCat

I don''t think you know too much about Portland. 3 out of every 4 cars have an "Impeach Bush" sticker on it. GOP has little to no influence in Oregon.

[ubrew12]

National Review: "It Would Signal That The U.S. Is Serious About Increasing Domestic Production"

And, in other headlines today, "Global Warming to spur Extreme Weather". Oh, yeah, it would definitely ''send a signal'' to the world community alright! (U.S. to communities at risk of global warming fallout: FU!)

[samthetvcat]

---"I don''t think you know too much about Portland. 3 out of every 4 cars have an "Impeach Bush" sticker on it. GOP has little to no influence in Oregon."---
Posted by Questionnews

Well why else would people be for off-shore drilling in their own backyard if not for misinformation? There''s too little for it to be worth the burden otherwise. I make the analogy to the Iraq war because that too was oversold. Would the majority of Americans have supported invasion if they knew Iraq didn''t have wmds? GOP deceive, and the media doesn''t do a good job of calling them on it . . .

[samthetvcat]

---"I don''t think you know too much about Portland. 3 out of every 4 cars have an "Impeach Bush" sticker on it. GOP has little to no influence in Oregon."---
Posted by Questionnews

Well why else would people be for off-shore drilling in their own backyard if not for misinformation? There''s too little for it to be worth the burden otherwise. I make the analogy to the Iraq war because that too was oversold. Would the majority of Americans have supported invasion if they knew Iraq didn''t have wmds? GOP deceive, and the media doesn''t do a good job of calling them on it . . .

[questionnews]

---"I don''''t think you know too much about Portland. 3 out of every 4 cars have an "Impeach Bush" sticker on it. GOP has little to no influence in Oregon."---
Posted by Questionnews

Well why else would people be for off-shore drilling in their own backyard if not for misinformation? There''''s too little for it to be worth the burden otherwise. I make the analogy to the Iraq war because that too was oversold. Would the majority of Americans have supported invasion if they knew Iraq didn''''t have wmds? GOP deceive, and the media doesn''''t do a good job of calling them on it . . .

Posted by SamTheTVCat at 03:40 PM : Jun 19, 2008

I give Oregonians more credit than that. There is a difference between knowing that oil is something we need to get away from and realizing if all potential energy sources are shut down that the economy of the region will collapse. We do need to ween ourselves off oil, but to do it overnight is impossible and the majority of people know it.
The January issue of Scentific American has a great article on solar power generation. With a $450 billion investment over the next 20 years it could supply about 70% of the nations electricity. It will take years to switch over to alternative energy sources, but we need to maintain our economy in the mean time or else we won''t be able to afford it.

[talkingham]

So why do we need more drilling?
They are just going to charge us more anyway because they know they can. Just last Fall the price of oil dropped to $44/barrel, so somehow between now and last October demand has tripled, yeah right. Believe all the lies you you hear on the news and read here. They (OPEC and our own producers) will sell you as much as you want at $135/barrel because there is no shortage, only the greed of billionaires an ****** speculators.

Has nothing to do with supply, except supplying these billionaires with more billions of dollars.

[samthetvcat]

---"but we need to maintain our economy in the mean time or else we won''t be able to afford it."---
Posted by Questionnews

Sorry, but I have no idea what this means . . . we only have enough oil to contribute to like 0.5% towards our economy after 10 years. It will lower costs by about 0.8%. We''re still going to be completely dependent on Saudi Arabia. Like do you accept those figures or are you thinking the situation is something else (?)

PS You were for the war, weren''t you? If not what facts specifically led you to conclude that war was not warranted? thx!

[talkingham]

Yeah this is just like the Jimmy Stewart movie of the late ''50''s when he convinces the gulf cost shrimpers that if they allow him to drill there will be plenty of cheap oil and gas for everyone forever- and in fact, that the largest shrimp just love hanging around the largest oil platforms.

They can drill on Mars, in your backyard, in the Alaska preserves and well, you might see gas go down for a little while, just until they invent another ***** in the supply chain and then you''ll be right back where you started driving your stinking 9mile/gal F250 or SUV. chuckle.

[samthetvcat]

---"but we need to maintain our economy in the mean time or else we won''t be able to afford it."---
Posted by Questionnews
Posted by SamTheTVCat

PS I''m sorry, I don''t mean to be so harsh but gosh this type of rationale sounds exactly like what people were saying prior to the Iraq war . . . it was always like ''but we need to be safe in the mean time or else we won''t be able to control terrorism''.

I mean like it SOUNDS totally rational, but the reality of the situation totally doesn''t warrant that conclusion . . . GOP prey on peoples desire to soothe their anxiety by replacing it with a feeling of being in control, even if control isn''t ultimately achievable. Just imagine how you''ll feel when your state coastline is covered in oil and birds are dying and it''s taking billions to clean up and gas came down a total of a penny a gallon . . .

[samthetvcat]

---"They can drill on Mars, in your backyard, in the Alaska preserves and well, you might see gas go down for a little while, just until they invent another ***** in the supply chain and then you''''ll be right back where you started driving your stinking 9mile/gal F250 or SUV. chuckle."---
Posted by talkingham

Although maybe the people of Portland meant to demonstrate that they''re open to compromise of like just approving exploration to find out just how much known deposits there really are without approving actual drilling - I could see them being open to that kind of progressive compromise . . . maybe I made too much of an assumption about the question of the poll :)

[questionnews]

Sorry, but I have no idea what this means

PS You were for the war, weren''''t you? If not what facts specifically led you to conclude that war was not warranted? thx!

Posted by SamTheTVCat at 04:08 PM : Jun 19, 2008

Well if our economy collapes we have no money to pay for the infrastructure change over. It''s far better to make these required changes while our economy is still somewhat strong then wait until we are really hurting to make the switch because that will take longer.
As far as the war issue goes, I would have much rather have spent that money on large scale solar & wind power generation than on Iraq. Leading the world on the path away from oil would have been the biggest finger to all the OPEC nation. Making oil an outdated energy source would have scared the c.r.a.p out of them and would have put real doubt in thier mind about the future of thier own countries.

[it_oldtimer]

Pfffftt...our remaining "native" oil reserves are already pitifully inadequate, and still years away from production.

Perhaps it would be better to just leave them untapped for now, and consider that oil a part of the "strategic reserve" - to be used only when all the other sources dry up.

Drilling more wells is classic head-in-the-sand solution! It ignores two of the biggest gorillas in the woods.
1. We WILL run out of oil someday. Drilling more wells just hastens the arrival of that day. We need to be getting ready for it, instead of going precisely in the wrong direction.
2. There is no getting around the effect fossil fuel burning has on this ocean of air we live in. Cars are the biggest sources of pollution.
The best and quickest way to lower gas prices is to put a leash on those predatory capitalist speculators that the republicans unleashed a few years ago. These clowns are the ONLY beneficiaries of more oil well drilling!

[texlandrover]

Everyone WAKE UP!!! We need a multi-prong approach. We need to build more Solar & Wind systems. Build Nuclear, YES Nuclear power. I know its hard for some to grasp but sometimes the wind does Not blow and it gets dark outside. And Finally, we need to fully exploit the fossil fuel resources located in North America. Enough sending US dollars to the mid East, lets spend that money in the USA!!! That is the solution, and it only took me 5 minutes to come up with it.

[texlandrover]

Everyone WAKE UP!!! We need a multi-prong approach. We need to build more Solar & Wind systems. Build Nuclear, YES Nuclear power. I know its hard for some to grasp but sometimes the wind does Not blow and it gets dark outside. And Finally, we need to fully exploit the fossil fuel resources located in North America. Enough sending US dollars to the mid East, lets spend that money in the USA!!! That is the solution, and it only took me 5 minutes to come up with it.

[tejasdemo]

The only thing it will signal is more getting screwed at the pump. Period.

[atheismwins]

Good article. Worldwide supply is 85 million barrels daily. Worldwide demand is 87 million. We are in a bidding war for oil.

Did anyone else hear the Dems'' back breaking? They are like the man who hit his wife because his sports team lost.

[ubrew12]

The powers that be promote oil and nuclear because they can control the fuel for these energy options. Think oil speculation is bad? Try speculation in uranium. We don''t promote renewable energy options because they are renewable, and so no one can monopolize the supply of the fuel.

Once we got it right. In the 1930s-50s, American''s built dams that still generate 20% of our electricity today, despite the fact that the dams paid for themselves 40 years ago. Thus, the energy they pump into the American economy is FREE. That would never happen under todays corporate-controlled energy market. Why can''t that happen for wind, wave, ocean thermal, geothermal, solar, and other mechanisms? Because powerful interests are against it, that''s why.

[ioweign]

Why can''''t that happen for wind, wave, ocean thermal, geothermal, solar, and other mechanisms? Because powerful interests are against it, that''''s why.

Posted by ubrew12 at 09:31 PM : Jun 19, 2008

CEO pay is at record highs...

[ubrew12]

IOWEIGN said: "CEO pay is at record highs..." Nice to see our priorities are in the right place...

To take just wave power as an example, certain states have had enough of oil-costs, and are beginning (finally) to order wave-power installations. So, which companies are about to reap massive growth from a sudden worldwide interest in wave power? Why, the Aussies, Scotts, and Scandinavians, of course. Only there did the government offer tax-breaks and other aid to these struggling companies while they were birthing their technologies.

There is one U.S. company with an offering to tap into this huge new market, just ONE. Where did they get their research funds during the hard years? The military. Welcome to America!!!

[sparks224]

The premis of this story is false.

There are plenty of oil fields in the continental U.S. that are not being utilized right now. Of course you will never about that from the ExxonMobile sponsored news.

[feelfree4u]

Re: "Lift the Offshore Drilling Ban"

I propose a compromise:

Why don''t we start with drilling into the rotten, disease-ridden heads of the editors of the National Review Online, and the Weakly Standard.

Surely there has to be something inside one of them that has fossilized by now.

If we have any luck, we can then start talking about other drilling targets, once these sources are tapped out.

[alancontact]

I don''t want offshore drilling. I don''t want access to cheaper oil that will give a complacency to avoid alternative energy. The best way to motivate development is to have shortages. If we continue to believe that we can get by on fossil fuels, we are heading for a major crisis... or at least our children are.

[jimfinster]

This is the weakest argument in the history of weak arguments. Drill so that we "send a signal to oil speculators"? At the same time admitting there is only 2-3 years worth of oil there? This is what we would risk ruining our coast for???

This is beyond stupid.

[omnibus66]

McCain, along with the Bush Crime Syndicate, are responsible for the current high oil prices. Applauding McCain for a lame proposal that will produce NOTHING for at least 10 years is beyond stupidity.

Even if new drilling would produce results tomorrow, it is, as we have come to expect from the Republicans, the wrong path. Like taking morphine for the pain of cancer, it covers but does not cure the real problem.

A small increase in oil supply for a short time would only serve to delay action to actually solve the real problem. We must, repeat must, turn to energy sources other than oil.

True, the Arabs have oil enough for the next hundred years, but they, along with the oil industry, are determined to bleed us dry as long as we are dependent on them.

Waste the next 10 years chasing a false promise, or use the time wisely to find a real answer, that''s the choice.

[notblue]

first of all there is not a small amount of untapped oil of Americas coasts and Alaska, there is enough varified reserves to power Americas needs for the next two hundres years, if they drill now the impact will be seen in 10 years. It would provide independence from middle east oil. Oil and auto are the same company and cars, trucks, heavy equipment and ships will be using it for the longterm. There is no other refueling infrastructure for any other options. It''s interesting how the uato makers in ten year cycles dangle some new technology in front of the American people and as long as they change focus every ten years or so they can continue to do business as usual.

[afmca]

This was the plan of Cheney''s illegal energy meeting at the beginning of King George''s first term. They took out Iraqi oil with a stupid war. They saber rattle to get speculators to fear war with Iran. They threaten Chavez to make Venezualian oil more difficult to get. Once this is all done, then they go after the American reserves. Want to bet that the leases will be so structured that the American taxpayer gets nothing but more expensive oil and gas. We are being played by fools by the oil industry and the Republican ******.

If we want to get out from under both middle eastern oil AND Big Oil we must learn to conserve and develop alternates to oil .. not just exploit the reserves we have. Oil is trying to enslave the American people to their will for another decade or two. We cannot be so stupid as McCain and the Repubs to fall for this.

[joyous88]

another ridiculous article that means absolutely nothing,

so what, we drill, find a little more oil ,use it up,

quess what? we wind up rigth back where we are now!

Another empty headed republicon plan to make a quick buck,

the greed driven republicon corporatists, nothing but war mongers

[notblue]

aintaken, some estimates state enough for 60 million homes and cars for the next 200 years, these stats are not made up, do a little research. On the one hand everyone *** about middle east dependence and on the other refuse to use these known resources out of politics not common sense. These resources were discovered in the 70''s and multiple administrations could have accessed them over the decades. Drilling technonlogy is safe and environmenally friendly, there is no reason not to harvest these needed resources.

[taxguydave]

A few facts, easily googled.

The US is already the world''s #3 oil producer (7-7.5 million bbl/day). Saudi Arabia and Russia are #2 and #3, 9 and 8 million bbl/day.

The US is the #1 oil consumer (21-23 million bbl/day).

Over 2/3 of existing oil and gas leases in the US are unexploited because the oil companies can''t make any money drilling them, even at $150/bbl.

Do the math. There ain''t no way to drill ourselves out of this.

[clestes-2009]

Not going to happen. The timing is all wrong. Rep had the opportunity to do this in 2005 and they could not even get ANWR open. If they had, this ban would have followed BUT IT DIDN''T HAPPEN.

Obama does not favor offshore drilling and neither do the democrats. Even if Obama lost, something that has less and less possibility every week, the dems in Congress would not support it.

No, the windfall tax is going to pass next year and that money is going to be spent on alternative energies, along with other monies from the budget and our coastlines will be oil rig free and our cities smog zone free and our national security not held hostage by dependance on oil.

What a wonderful future! We have f*cked things up enough for our grandchildren now. Maybe we can start working on leaving them a better world.

[jimfinster]

first of all there is not a small amount of untapped oil of Americas coasts and Alaska, there is enough varified reserves to power Americas needs for the next two hundres years, if they drill now the impact will be seen in 10 years.

Posted by notblue

Genius, you need to go visit the USGS and the Energy Dept and set them straight! Poor dumb guys, they say there is only a few years of oil in both places. Even say so on their web sites!

[caliguy55]

It would be nice if the posters in this section knew the facts about what they were attempting to discuss. It would take 5 to 10 years to fully develop any oil fields found today. It would take that long to get one drop of oil from them. Also, we consume so much oil that production of every barrel of oil available to the U.S. under any circumstance today would, at the most, lower gasoline prices somewhere between $0.03 and $0.05. As usual, Bush is lying, when he states anything contradictory to these facts.

[caliguy55]

With gasoline topping $4 per gallon, McCain reversed his stance on offshore drilling and called for Congress to lift a 27-year-old moratorium on coastal energy exploration. With this shift, McCain has put himself on the same side as two-thirds of the American people, according to a recent poll. This is enlightening in that highlights one of the many issues McSame has flip-flopped o n in the past few months.

[joyous88]

caliguy55;

right on!, bush is lying ,as usual, and McSame is right ion there lying with him, also as usual,

the problem with using oil will remain even if we drill, we need to use alternate forms of energy, when
will americans wake up and understand that the republicons are a greed driven fascist party, they do not care about America

[notblue]

jimfinster, try all websites, including oil company, the USGS isn''t in the business of searching for oil reserves destined for oil companies. Other countries understand the TRUTH that''s why they are drilling 60 miles of our shores, that''s why Russia put a flag on the floor of the ocean at the north pole. you people like to have it both ways and play both sides of the fence. If you want to deal with REALITY oil is going to be our only viable choice for many decades, we have it we are not using it, it''s that simple. While it will take ten years to bring it to the public the sooner we move on this the sooner it will happen. Why do you think there have been no refineries built since the 70''s? because the oil companies were not aloud in the 70''s to access these resources and they still aren''t allowed. Do you want to be less dependent on foriegn oil? If so then stop the incorrect propoghanda people like you spew and use the oil we have. It''s that simple.

[superdem]

Yes - McCain has moved away from what we need to do, to support what he have always done, no progress there at all. He has knuckled under to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries in true Republican style. We can expect nothing but further resource exploitation, environmental degradation, pollution, and nuclear waste under a McCain Administration. We need a Manhattan Project away from fossil fuels, as McCain advocated before he caved, and we won''t get it from the Republicans who care only about money and entrenched power. DUMP THE REPUBLICANS !!!

[notblue]

superdum, you make it sound like republicans are the only ones who drive vehicles, cook on a stove or heat their homes, get a life and a perspective dummmasss.

[juliemd]

Baloney!!! Any ole excuse to f with nature and rape the land...these NRO guys are soooo 19th century...there will be blood...hopefully, theirs all over the floor...put that in your tank and drive it...!

[jon2012-2009]

We have billions of barrels of oil that can''''t be drilled for because of the Democrats in Congress.

Posted by dmw1167 at 12:23 PM : Jun 20, 2008

This doesn''t answer the key numerical disparity between U.S. oil consumption of 25% of the world''s output and possessing only 3% of proven reserves, including oil fields already online. In a way, a higher price for gas is probably the best way to reduce consumption and make renewable energy competitive with fossil fuel. But this is too much for the likes of you to grasp who can only see short-term spoils for Bush and Cheney''s buddies that will not benefit American motorists.

[taxguydave]

Mexico and Canada were mentioned. Together, they produce less than the US. America consumes more oil per day than the entire daily output of North and South America put together.

Maybe we should make the oil companies drill the 2/3 of oil leases that they have that they aren''t currently drilling before giving them the entire Western US.