WASHINGTON, Sept. 17, 2008
House Approves Limited Offshore Drilling
Republicans Say Measure To Restrictive On Where Oil Can Be Pumped, Call It A "Sham"
-
Photo
In this March 28, 2006 file photo, the Discoverer Deep Seas drillship sits on station off the coast of Louisiana as Chevron drills for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
-
News Tools
By The Barrel
A look at the products derived from a barrel of crude oil after it is refined.
-
Interactive
Eye On Energy
Explore the production and consumption of energy in the U.S. Find out more about energy costs, and the use of fossil fuels, nuclear power and renewable energy sources.
Democratic leaders called it a step toward energy independence, but Republicans labeled it a "sham" because most of the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil believed to lie below off-limits coastal waters are within 50 miles of land and will remain out of bounds.
The measure passed in a largely party-line vote of 236-189. It now goes to the Senate, where energy will be the topic later in the week. Thirteen Democrats bucked their leadership and voted against the measure.
Even before the House vote, the White House said President Bush was prepared to veto the measure should it reach his desk. An administration statement said the bill would "stifle development" of offshore energy resources by essentially making permanent drilling bans within the 50-mile coastal buffer, while imposing new taxes on the largest oil companies.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the bill "represents a new direction in energy policy" and a "bold step forward that will end our dependence on foreign oil" by using billions of dollars collected in taxes on large oil companies to promote alternative fuels and energy efficiency.
Republicans called the drilling measure a ruse to provide political cover to Democrats feeling pressure to support more drilling at a time of high gas prices.
"How much new drilling do we get out of this bill? It's zero. Just zero," declared House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio. "It's a hoax on the American people. This is intended for one reason ... so the Democrats can say we voted on energy."
The measure would allow drilling in waters 50 miles from shore almost everywhere from New England to Washington state as long as a state agrees to go along with energy development off its coast. Beyond 100 miles, no state approval would be required. The drilling ban would remain in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Each year for the past 26 years, Congress has passed drilling bans on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts because of environmental concerns and pressure from some coastal states worried that drilling might hurt the tourist business.
Unlike bills offered by House Republicans and others being considered in the Senate, the House-passed legislation would not share royalties from energy production with the adjacent states. Boehner said without royalty sharing, states probably would not opt for drilling off their beaches.
Quote
House Republican leader
Republicans also cited Interior Department estimates that 88 percent of the 18 billion barrels of oil believed to be in waters now under drilling bans would remain off-limits because they are within the 50-mile protective coastal buffer.It's a hoax on the American people. This is intended for one reason... so the Democrats can say we voted on energy.
Rep. John Boehner,House Republican leader
The House voted to roll back nearly $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years for the five largest oil companies and require energy companies to pay billions of dollars in royalties they avoided because of an Interior Department contracting error.
The bill also would require the president to make available oil from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Pelosi said such a move is needed to drive down gasoline prices, even though oil prices have dropped dramatically in recent weeks and many energy experts believe gasoline prices will fall as well after refineries recover from Hurricane Ike.
Democrats added a provision at the last minute that makes it a federal crime for oil companies with federal leases to provide gifts to government employees, a response to a recent sex and drug scandal involving the federal office that oversees the offshore oil royalty program and energy company employees.
The Democratic bill also would:
Expanded offshore drilling has become a mantra of GOP energy policy that has been felt on the presidential and congressional campaign trails despite wide agreement that lifting the drilling ban would have little if any impact on gasoline prices or produce any oil for years.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain pledged at the recently concluded GOP convention to push for new offshore oil and gas drilling amid delegate chants of "Drill, baby drill" and his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, said he supported more drilling as part of a broader energy package.
But Democrats derided what they called Republicans' "drill only" response to the country's energy problems.
"America needs an oil change," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. "They keep saying on the Republican side, `Drill, baby, drill!' What we're saying is `Change, baby, change!' and they can't change.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 89 CommentsUSAToday hasn''t published it.
Fox has!
Still silence from USAToday, cnn, and abcnews.
C''mon, media. Get the story out there!
Your post is totally stupid. If this was the case why would anyone sell excess electricity? No one would need it. Solar has been around for 40 years, if it was econically feasable that would be the case, it''s not.
When you figure out how to get a truck down the road on electricity, let us all know. Chevy does''nt even have the batteries yet for the electric car they showed yesterday, and even then it will only go 40 miles without gasoline. Your a bit ahead of yourself.
abcnews - front page
msnbc - front page
foxnews - front page
usatoday - nothing
Let''s talk about all the liberals on Wall Street getting million dollar bonuses and then driving there companies into bankrupcy with there clever money making ideas such as credit default swaps.
OK lets, if you can name a few Wall Street "liberals", so we can have a specific topic for discussion.
What is plain and clear here, is that oil companies are lobbying for high-profit drilling areas, only. Deep water drilling is only profitable while oil is selling for $150 a barrel, whle shallow water drilling is profitable when oil is higher than $15 a barrel.
Oil companies can invest in deep water drilling technologies and make profit in those locations when oil is $75 a barrel, if they tried.
Shallow oil drilling only cost $4-5 a to lift a barrel out of the sea, but the oil bearing caverns deplete much faster and diminish by 10-15 percent each year after producing for 30 years. Deep water drilling is believed to produce for 50+ years.
The Chinese have an economic system at this time that makes fixed costs for drilling less than 10% of our own.
Removing the 53 cent per gallon tax on Sugar Cane based ethanol imported from Brazil, would be an example where we can kill lobbyists effort to protect profit at consumer''s expense. The profits being protected are the corn based ethanol plants, here.
cnn, abcnews, foxnews, msnbc
Not considered news:
usatoday
I''m off to work.
"The projections in the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030".
This will only give us about 3% more fuel. In the mean time who do you think is going to pay for the drilling for the next 22 years? We are, that''s who. In higher prices. The Oil Companies are not going to foot the bill. Prices are not going to come down in those 22 years. Who is the Republican Party kidding? The stupid as always.
This is important, because neocons will in the future try to con us into believing their actions caused oil to get cheaper, and that we should drill in ANWR.
In reality, this drilling will do almost NOTHING to the price of oil. It''s just more pandering to special interests by the Grand Oil Party!
I agree with this statement:
"It''s a hoax on the American people. This is intended for one reason... so the Democrats can say we voted on energy."
Rep. John Boehner,
House Republican leader
The Republicans wanted MUCH more. But the Democrats should not even have allowed this, and instead should have stood their grounds on principle.
Are the Democrats stupid or do the think that we are that stupid to believe this is a solution????????
Posted by commonsence1
"If Democrats Had Any Brains, They%u2019d Be Republicans" Ann Coulter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by smurfcrusher at 08:38 AM : Sep 17, 2008
The American people need solutions and the 9% approval LIB congress gives a side show.
The LIBS propose to open up about 5% of the areas we need to drill.
VOTE THE WORTHLESS LIBS OUT! NOVEMBER WILL BE THE LAST OD SAN FRAN NAN. thank goodness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by mrmazerati at 09:50 AM : Sep 17, 2008
What would you recommend in the next 10 to 15 years it takes to bring these alternative energies on line. By the way, no one even knows what these alternatives will be as of today.
Until then our entire economy is based on oil.
in the early part of this century oil wells were as plentiful as palm trees on the gold coast of California. A 1925 earthquake sheared the casings in the same area. Standard Oil bought into the local system around the same time. In 1969 Derrick #2 in the bay between the channel Islands and the Gold coast experienced a back blow that took out the whole coast line. The offshore legislation against off shore drilling is primarily based on that incident. Now the Hilton enterprises have luxury hotels along the same beech and want to continue to build but are now quietly facing the issues of once sheared casings on this same coastal property. I am describing one 2 mile stretch of U.S. coastline and its historical consequences. In the era of environmental rationalization of the post Vietnam era Drilling has been restricted. Now the law makers are dancing around the issues because of energy dependence. I have a question...
Do you want to live in luxury on a pretty beech or do you want the gas to get there?
How can you put a timeline on WHEN something will be discovered - especially when our government hasn''''t even STARTED TO LOOK at alternatives, nor offer funding to major learning institutions to fund the research?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by hungry1968-1 at 10:26 AM : Sep 17, 2008
Do you think MAYBE we need a backup plan since you are HOPING to run America''s economy on something that hasn''t been invented yet?
I think T. Boone Pickens idea of natural gas autos is viable. How long to replace the 100 million cars on the road today? And this is with EXISTING technology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by hungry1968-1 at 10:28 AM : Sep 17, 2008
No, they want America to produce more of their own energy to avert $700 billion going offshore annually.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by johndevinejr at 10:11 AM : Sep 17, 2008
Typical non-thought nobama supporter. John Devine, Jr? That your real name?
THE LIB CONGRESS IS NOT WORKING FOR AMERICA!
+ report abuse
It will come in the next few weeks that the deregulation of mortgage industry was an attempt by congress to "include" those groups who had previously been unable to borrow. No money down low interest teaser loans enabled a larger portion of Americans to borrow when they had no possibility under the required minimum standards of the regulated industry. BOTH parties let this happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by MarkS7177 at 10:39 AM : Sep 17, 2008
ALL studies indicate that 95% of the oil deposits lay within the 50 mile limit.
The Florida west coast in the eastern Gulf could potentially make America energy independent. Pelosi is afraid that this will prevent alternative fuels, like the infamous ethanol scam causing much higher food prices. God save us from people who claim they want to save the world.
Well golly gee, that was waaaaay worse then this today.. And we did NOTHING to free ourselves of oil. If we had started acting bravely then, technology would be far more advanced now. No one expects cars to disappear, but for god''s sake they dont need gasoline!!!!!! There are better ways to power our cars homes and factories!! We MUST move in this direction, even if you dont care about the environment, oil will run out, and long before it does it will get very very expensive people!
nickedemis,
Your post is totally stupid. If this was the case why would anyone sell excess electricity? No one would need it. Solar has been around for 40 years, if it was econically feasable that would be the case, it''''s not.
When you figure out how to get a truck down the road on electricity, let us all know. Chevy does''''nt even have the batteries yet for the electric car they showed yesterday, and even then it will only go 40 miles without gasoline. Your a bit ahead of yourself.
the Institute for Energy Research (IER) posted a devastating exposi of the Pelosi plan. As announced last week, the plan would:
*
Permanently ban access to about 97 percent of the undersea oil lying within 50 miles of the California coast.
*
Continue the ban on energy production in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
*
Impose a brand-new ban on oil and gas leases in Alaska%u2019s coastal waters out to 50 miles.
*
Not allow states that approve new leases beyond 50 miles to share royalties with the federal government, thus stripping any financial incentive for states to stand up to environmental pressure groups, who will continue to agitate against any new oil and gas operations offshore.
http://planetgore.nationalr
eview.com/post/?q=ZTZkYzNiZTE3ZDFjOTI1Yj
RhZjQxNDMxMzVlNDcyYmM=
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 89 Comments