Drilling for a comprehensive energy plan
(The following column appeared in Tuesday's Boston Globe)
By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist
To drill or not to drill. We know the answer of the Republicans from their "drill, baby, drill" convention. Last weekend, President Bush again called for oil drilling on the outer continental shelf and blamed Democrats for blocking him. "This is their final chance to take action before the November elections," Bush warned. "If members of Congress do not support the American people at the gas pump, then they should not expect the American people to support them at the ballot box."
The actions of the Democrats in this three-week session will tell us whether they will signal the changes that might come in an Obama administration or they will wilt again. During the primaries, the Democrats vilified the plunderous energy policies of the Bush administration, the secretive energy meetings of Vice President Dick Cheney, and the record profits of Big Oil. In June, Barack Obama reacted to Bush's call for drilling by saying, "The politics may have changed but the facts haven't. . . . When I'm president, I intend to keep in place the moratorium here in Florida and around the country. . . . That may not poll well. . . . My job is not to go with the polls. My job is to tell the American people the truth."
But in recent weeks, Obama and other top Democrats have thrown water on the fires of their rhetoric with a sneaky big word: comprehensive.
With 62 to 74 percent of Americans now favoring offshore drilling in recent polls, Obama went to the battleground state of Michigan with a message of change that was not exactly what he has been selling. Despite repeating that "George Bush's own Energy Department has said that if we opened up new areas to drilling today, we wouldn't see a single drop of oil for seven years," Obama went on to tout a possible bipartisan compromise that supposedly mixes investment in renewable sources of energy with a "limited amount of offshore drilling."
Obama said, "I am willing to consider it if it's necessary to actually pass a comprehensive plan . . . particularly since there is so much good in this compromise that would actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil."
Obama appeared to soften his stance even more last week in another battleground state, Pennsylvania. He told an audience (after the usual drilling-won't-get-us-much qualifiers), "science and technology has caught up to the point where we can explore some new areas where we could potentially get more oil reserves."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in 1996 that she ardently supported a permanent moratorium on offshore drilling off her home state of California coast because, "We cannot allow our environmentally sensitive and economically vital coastline to be spoiled." But on NBC's "Meet the Press" two weeks ago, Pelosi said, "We'll put it all on the table, comprehensive, offshore drilling, if that is worth it, but renewable energy resources so that we do not get in this situation again." Told by host Tom Brokaw that her position was a "big change," Pelosi said, "As speaker, I have to put everything on the table. . . . I don't think it's a good alternative, but if they can prove that it is, and they want to pay royalties to the taxpayer, let us use these royalties to invest in renewable energy resources."
Senate majority leader Harry Reid said the call for drilling from Bush and John McCain was a "cynical campaign ploy," but he, too, will accept a "comprehensive" package that allows drilling. All of this is a reminder that for all the Democrats' rhetoric, the hand of Big Oil is moving in the background. McCain has so far taken in $1.4 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas lobby, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That is a lot more than Obama's nearly $400,000. But between Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson, the three crossed the $1 million mark in contributions.
The next three weeks will tell what kind of spine the Democrats have as the Republicans try to drill a hole right through it. If the facts have not changed about drilling, then let the politics of Democrats show it.
Derrick Z. Jackson can be reached at jackson@globe.com.
Comment
Permalink
Email
When you see your job as protecting 'people's' comfort and not the 'environment' or its 'resources' , and your education system falsely teaches you (and your constituents) that those things are separable or that you have a special right to untapped energy its not hard to make a compromise based on a rouse to help concentrate more capital in private interests.
Its not shocking that democrats may or will cave in, republicans do that constantly as well. Both parties cave-in on protecting resources and cave-in when agreeing to dole out welfare to large donors all the time. What is shocking is that after a 1-2 dollar rise in the price of gas (which is clearly manipulated) the people cave in and give themselves over to the same welfare institutions which gave them leaded gas.
Drill baby drill. The Democrats won't let us drill offshore. We could drill offshore and have our own oil:
Although estimates of oil and gas reserves in unexplored areas are very inexact, the best estimate is that only 20% of oil and gas on the OCS is located in areas not already open to drilling.
Really - 80% of the oil and gas is located offshore Lousiana and Texas in areas that have been open to drilling since the 1960's. It gets worse. Every rig that can drill is drilling and there is a multi-year backlog of identified drill sites waiting on a rig. Rigs are being built as fast as they can and those being built are already sold and already signed up to long term drilling contracts. So, drilling on the OCS, in the best areas for oil and gas is already running flat out and will continue to run flat out for years to come.
Of the remaining 20%, half is oil located offshore California, where the governor and the legislature don't want drilling.
That leaves only 10%, mostly offshore Florida in the Gulf of Mexico, possibly some off the East Coast, spread all over God's blue sea. It gets worse. Offshore Florida in the Gulf of Mexico and off the East Coast are areas that are gas-prone. The US doesn't need more natural gas, we need more oil.
We import 10 million barrels of oil a day and another 3.5 million barrels of refined products. Prudhoe Bay produced 1.5 million barrels of oil a day when it was at peak. So we would need 6.7 Prudhoe Bays, all producing at peak, to eliminate the oil imports. No going to happen..
The idea that we are not drilling offshore is a lie.
The idea that there are huge amounts of oil offshore that are off limits to drilling is a lie.
Other than that, "drill baby drill" is a really great idea.
One question: Why are the Democrats so stupid that they can't win this debate with the facts?
It gets worse -
They can't win the debate with facts because people are not interested in facts. People are interested in hearing what they want to hear. If people want to hear that drilling will solve the problem there are politicians willing to tell them that. It does get any simpler.
Argh....no reason for this drilling. A friend of mine worked on a rig off Santa Barbara, CA. They were ordered by Chevron to burn off 12,000 barrels of gas per day during the recent run up in prices. Why, you ask? No where to store it. Too much gas.
But lets put it this way; you want off shore oil off your coast? then vote for it at your state level and let it be in those coastal cities that agree to expose their shores to oil spills and pollution, like Santa Barbara does. If the state agrees and then the local community agrees, let it be so.
But it just isn't necessary, really.
The Democrats are making me crazy. By the way, I am a Democrat. I simply cannot understand why Obama cannot win this argument. I cannot understand why the American people don't call the Republicans on this topic.
I heard yesterday that both Pelosi and Reid are not favoring drilling as a compromise and that Obama is falling in line. THIS IS HIS CHANCE TO STAND UP TO HIS OWN PARTY AND SAY "NO". A little disagreement between party leader and party candidate would solidify his position and get some sorely needed press.
How can the Democrats be so lame at campaigning?
In the Bill Oreilly interview of Barack Obama, regarding the discussion
about Obama's energy plan, in response to Bill asking
Barack, what if the development of alternate energy
sources don't deliver. Obama compared his approach
to John Kennedy's space program, and how if you go
for it , the answers will come. But, the distinction between
our space program and our energy challenge is ... If it had taken
us longer than we thought to get to the moon ... or, if we hadn't
gotten to the moon ... no big deal. But, if we put all our hopes
into alternative energy, and it doesn't happen in time ... or, if
it doesn't work, our entire economy, as well as our national
security could end up in ruins. Our country's entire energy
infrastructure revolves around petroleum. All the gast stations,
all the vehicles. Democrats keep citing how long it will take
to get more oil out of the ground. But, even if an alternative
fuel is found tomorrow, how long will it take America to
transition from our existing infrastructure to a completely
new one? In the meantime, people have to get to work, and
goods have to get to market. This is an important reason to
secure our energy needs with oil drilling and mining oil shale,
while we try to develop alternate energy. Obama seems to be
playing fast and loose with our country's future ... gambling
with our future, all based on hope and faith ... with consequences
which could be dire. Obama's plans, or lack thereof, are
extremely irresponsible. Not suprising from a candidate who
does not have the experience, qualifications, or judgement to lead, as
President of the United States.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
contributors
Recent Blog Posts
browse this blog
by categoryRelated Blogs
Organizations
Information Sources
INside Boston.com