By Jim DeFede The rhetoric has been stunning. According to President Bush, John McCain, and Charlie Crist, if we just start drilling for oil off the coast of Florida, gas prices will fall and our lives will all improve. Listening to the three of them this week has been a lesson in how to deflect attention from the real problems facing this country. The notion that as a country we can drill our way out of the energy crisis or that by drilling off Florida's coast o r in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), we can end our dependence on foreign oil is just patently false. The United States sits on three percent of the world's oil supply but we consume 25 percent of the world's oil. And the fact that it would take seven to ten years for any oil to be produced from those offshore wells, and that it will have no impact on the current price of gasoline, has been all but lost on Bush, McCain, and Crist. Nevertheless, I realize the push to drill off of Florida is very appealing to a lot of people who just want the government to do something, anything to help with the pain they are feeling when they fill up their gas tanks. But when you look at the fact – and sift out the rhetoric – you will realize drilling won't work. A recently released Congressional report produced by the House's Natural Resources Committee, found the following:
In other words, more drilling does not mean lower gas prices. But if you still believe – as the President apparently does – that high gas prices are a simple matter of supply and demand (and not the result of oil company greed or price manipulation from speculators), then there are already vast tracts of land, leased and ready for drilling, that the oil companies are jus t sitting on. According to the Congressional report:
If the oil companies actually went ahead and drilled on all of the land currently available to them, it would generate an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil a day, which would nearly double the amount of oil produced within the United States. So, why would the oil and gas companies sit on the land? There are a number of reasons. The capacity of our oil refineries are near their limits, so no matter how much oil we pump out of the ground, turning it into gasoline presents a whole different set of problems. Another possible – and dare I say it -- cynical reason for stockpiling the permits and the land is to bank them for future use when the oil prices will likely be even higher. A better question, however, is why would President Bush and John McCain and Charlie Crist support offshore drilling and call on Congress to lift the moratorium on it. The answer is simple: politics. The rising gasoline prices are a major problem for Republicans in this election. The Bush White House is correctly perceived as being closely aligned with Big Oil and John McCain has promised not only a continuation of the President's policies, but McCain's economic plan includes $4 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies. The public is angry. They want someone to blame. And right now that anger is directed at the oil companies and their perceived allies. Bush and McCain are trying to find someone else for the public to blame. The President knows that Congress will not lift the moratorium on drilling off the coast of Florida. Bush and McCain can then deflect criticism from their own policies and blame Congress, and specifically the Democrats, for the pain people are feeling at the pump. The fact that Charlie Crist is playing along is nevertheless troubling. The Palm Beach Post did a marvelous job of going back and digging up just a few of Crist's quotes on offshore drilling. "I oppose any efforts that will allow oil drilling off of Florida' s coast." August 26, 2006"Many think that we have only two options, drill for more oil or face higher energy costs. Leaders look for new alternatives." August 28, 2006: And my own personal favorite Charlie Crist quote is from October 2007, when he was asked to describe the issues that were important to him in selecting the next president of the United States. "The issues that matter to me and the people of our state are the national catastrophic fund, that we get that going," Crist said. "That we protect Florida's precious Everglades, our environment is very important; and that we not have somebody in the White House who thinks we need to drill off the coast of our state." And yet Charlie Crist is pushing for John McCain, who says he is categorically opposed to creating a national catastrophic fund to help Floridians deal with the high cost of windstorm insurance, who voted against funding for Everglades restoration, and who now says he supports offshore drilling. The governor's willingness to abandon the very issues he said were important to him shows just how brazen his own political ambitions have become. Is there anything Charlie Crist won't do to become John McCain's running mate? One last point on drilling: Every day I hear someone repeat the lie that drilling off the coast of Florida is safe and will not harm the environment. John McCain said these rigs are "safe enough" and cited as proof th e notion that hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 blew through the Gulf of Mexico without any adverse impact on the environment. "As for offshore drilling, it's safe enough these days that not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from the battered rigs off the coasts of New Orleans and Houston," McCain said. Here again are the facts:
Also, the rigs themselves are an environmental hazard. The Sierra Club, compiling information from various federal agencies, notes that:
The risks of drilling are far too great. As tempting as the idea of drilling may be to some, it is not the answer. As Charlie Crist said, "Leaders look for new alternatives." Too bad our governor decided to stop being a leader.
"I don't have all the answers. I don't need all the answers right now. All I have to do is solve the problems one at a time. More importantly, I won't be doing it by myself."-- Sean O'Hanlon
Doc,
I've been saying the same thing on this site ever since the furor over domestic drilling as a way out of our present petroleum prices first started.
Some people simply do not want to hear it. *sigh*
The really scary thing in all of this is that for ~ the same money spent, we could get better solutions in less time than the whole inferior "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" concept.
I just wish people would =think= rather than simply emotionally react.
Sorry Doc, your Dem talking points are tired and busted.
The millions of acres argument is BS since just because one holds a lease does not mean they can get permits to even do seismic. When they do get the fed permit, they then have to try and get local permits which NIMBY and every green cause fights costing Us, the consumer, more in the end.
The 7 - 10 year thing is also bs. Onshore wells can be brought online in 6 months, shallow offshore in under a year ect. The ultra deep will take 7 - 10 but that is not all we are talking about now is it? Just think, even using your numbers we would be getting our own oil now if the dems and Clinton had not stopped it in the 90's.
But since you are hung up on 7-10 years, I guess that all the alternatives are out of the question too since it will take longer that that to get them even started. Lets just sit on our thumbs and cry about it.
Democracy is Two Wolves and a Lamb Voting on What to Have for Lunch. Liberty is a Well-Armed Lamb Contesting the Vote :: Benjamin Franklin 2003 F250 7.3 Powerstroke 2003 VW Beetle TDI
cjheap: Sorry Doc, your Dem talking points are tired and busted. The millions of acres argument is BS since just because one holds a lease does not mean they can get permits to even do seismic. When they do get the fed permit, they then have to try and get local permits which NIMBY and every green cause fights costing Us, the consumer, more in the end. The 7 - 10 year thing is also bs. Onshore wells can be brought online in 6 months, shallow offshore in under a year ect. The ultra deep will take 7 - 10 but that is not all we are talking about now is it? Just think, even using your numbers we would be getting our own oil now if the dems and Clinton had not stopped it in the 90's. But since you are hung up on 7-10 years, I guess that all the alternatives are out of the question too since it will take longer that that to get them even started. Lets just sit on our thumbs and cry about it.
This comment has been crossposted at AT&T: 611 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA -- Room 641A.
'05 Liberty, '83 240D
cjheap: The 7 - 10 year thing is also bs. Onshore wells can be brought online in 6 months, shallow offshore in under a year ect. The ultra deep will take 7 - 10 but that is not all we are talking about now is it?
The 7 - 10 year thing is also bs. Onshore wells can be brought online in 6 months, shallow offshore in under a year ect. The ultra deep will take 7 - 10 but that is not all we are talking about now is it?
REALLY? Evidence please. The US Petroleum Institure disagrees with you last I heard.
Again, evidence please.
Voltaire: cjheap: The 7 - 10 year thing is also bs. Onshore wells can be brought online in 6 months, shallow offshore in under a year ect. The ultra deep will take 7 - 10 but that is not all we are talking about now is it? REALLY? Evidence please. The US Petroleum Institure disagrees with you last I heard. But since you are hung up on 7-10 years, I guess that all the alternatives are out of the question too since it will take longer that that to get them even started. Lets just sit on our thumbs and cry about it. Again, evidence please.
My two eyes and those of my many friends in the drilling business. Prove me wrong Voltare.
As for the alternatives, you prove they can be commercially viable and widespread in under 7 years. I know how long it takes to build windmills since my BIL builds them for GE. I know that solar is not even off the ground. So what are you talking about.
cjheap: Voltaire:Again, evidence please. My two eyes and those of my many friends in the drilling business. Prove me wrong Voltare.
Voltaire:Again, evidence please.
Then quote them in a way that will hold up in court if I swear them in and ask them if they said what you post here.
(If you must use personal anecdotal evidence rather quoting official sources, we should at least be able to know who they are and be able to verify that what you claim they said is actually what they said. Just saying "I have friends that ..." is completely bogus since there is no way to judge the veracity or worth of the claimed source. Or even that they actually exist.)
In particular, ask them to explain and prove in what ways the American Petroleum Institute and multiple depts within the US government are wrong.
"your eyes" don't mean squat unless you can claim to be a working expert in the field under discussion. Otherwise, you have to prove what you say just like the rest of us more ordinary mortals. Argument from Authority depends on the premise that you are an authority on the topic under discussion. You have not met that burden of proof for this subject area.
Prove me wrong Voltair. BTW, I have worked in the industry during college on a geology internship. I have been there from start to finish on a well site.
Since you admit to not knowing what you are talking about, you need to do some research outside the DNC.