Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: The Coach on June 11, 2008, 10:37:14 AM
-
.....It's your fault >:(
Offshore Oil Drilling to Get Another Look in Congress
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
E-Mail Respond Print Share:
WASHINGTON — With oil and gas prices reaching record highs and little relief in sight, Republican members of Congress are looking at a long-sought, but so far unsuccessful plan to open American shores up to more petroleum exploration.
Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa. is leading the charge Wednesday, when he'll push for an amendment to a spending bill that would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.
"For 27 years, Congress has deliberately locked up vast offshore oil and natural gas reserves," Peterson said, according to USA Today. "With the price at the pump increasing daily — with no end in sight — and the cost of natural gas trading at record levels, Congress needs to unlock these reserves."
Most oil production and exploration has been banned since 1981.
According to Peterson's office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.
Peterson is not alone in his desire to open up the shelf. An effort to unlock the resources has been underway in Congress in recent years, and several interest groups are backing the effort, too.
"Tapping America's huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on gasoline prices," Greg Schnacke, President of Americans for American Energy, said in a news release, adding: "With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS should be developed."
But the proposal has faced staunch opposition from environmental groups from states where the shorelines are under consideration for drilling, like Florida.
Sierra Club lands program director Athan Manuel told a House committee Wednesday that drilling has been unsuccessful in driving costs down.
"The disappointing part about some of the energy policies being promoted (is) that it calls for more drilling when drilling really is the problem. And all we've got to show for pretty aggressive (domestic) drilling for the last 35 years is, again, $4 for a gallon of gas," Manuel said, adding "since the first Arab oil shock in the 1970s, the U.S. has produced almost 90 billion barrels of oil since then, so we've tried drilling our way out of the problem and it just hasn't worked."
Environment Florida spokeswoman Holly Binns told the Media General news group that offshore drilling has no immediate impact on prices.
"It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply,” Binns said, advocating renewable energy sources.
Democrats are holding their own series of events on Capitol Hill Wednesday to focus attention on global warming and energy independence, but drilling is not on the agenda. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday ongoing calls for more drilling "is the Johnny One-Note of the Republican Party."
Not surprisingly, the issue has spilled into the ream of presidential politics as well.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., criticized Democrats, including fellow Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., over recent comments Obama made regarding gas prices.
The comments that McConnell referred to were given during an interview with CNBC. Discussing rising gasoline prices, Obama said: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.
Obama also said that "if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly U.S. automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now.
McConnell, honing in on Obama's referral to "gradual" price increases, said Obama's remarks are evidence that Obama believes "rising gas prices aren't the problem. The problem, he suggested, is that they've gone up too fast. He said he would prefer a gradual adjustment."
He continued: "Whether it's shutting down domestic exploration in large areas both onshore and offshore, instituting a moratorium on oil shale development, increasing the gas tax, or refusing to pursue coal to liquids, Democrats long ago implemented a 'gradual adjustment' on gas prices that's reflected today in the $4.05 Americans are paying for a gallon of gas."
-
I am a big environmentalist-my thoughts and focus revolve around sustainability, and I feel like I live a pretty concious lifestyle. If I do something un-environmentally sound, I try to make up for by planting a bunch of trees or going and doing trash pick ups and what not. I'm just saying this to give you an idea of the standpoint from which I am coming:
I don't understand why people refuse to see beyond the initial period of discomfort when it comes to this oil issue. This could very well be better for the environment than getting oil from overseas, considering all the detrimental environmental effects of everything having anything to do with middle eastern oil-which, if you analyze it are probably up in the range of mind boggling.
No one wants you shipping your food in from all over the globe, do they? No, they want you to buy locally. Everyone is concerned with the environment and no one is going to let that oil be drilled in anything but the most environementally sound manner possible. We know that's still not great, but we also all know that oil is not popular and it's probably on it's way out given that big business has found such a new cash cow in sustainable energy. Everyone knows that we can't just top using it tomorrow; so getting it from close to home while we still are using it can't be anything but good for the environment. It doesn't have to mean that we are going to be using it forever. It just means that we are going to get it closer to home until we don't have use for it any longer. And beyond that, why can't there be some kind of legal footnote saying that such and such number of things hav to be done to make up for any and all environmental damage done? Essentially, that's what these carbon credits you can buy in stores are for-you are attempting to make up for the damage you have done.
Last, of course no one wants the drilling done in national nature reserves like up in Alaska; that's outrageous. Why not do it where we have a better oppurtunity and in a way that everyone can accept is even better than how we do it now and with the thought in mind that it's just temporary?
-
Keep in mind that the Republican-controlled congress, from 2000 thru 2006, did nothing to drill there.
Joe, you never seem to address this point.
For 6 straight years, the Republican--controlled Senate killed this bill.
Stop posting talking out of your ass, Joe. I think we're all getting a little tired of your unoriginal cut-n-paste that you refuse to fact check.
-
Keep in mind that the Republican-controlled congress, from 2000 thru 2006, did nothing to drill there.
Joe, you never seem to address this point.
For 6 straight years, the Republican--controlled Senate killed this bill.
Stop posting talking out of your ass, Joe. I think we're all getting a little tired of your unoriginal cut-n-paste that you refuse to fact check.
why do you bother? you know you are much smarter then him. You know he won't change his mind no matter what evidence is presented.
-
Keep in mind that the Republican-controlled congress, from 2000 thru 2006, did nothing to drill there.
Joe, you never seem to address this point.
For 6 straight years, the Republican--controlled Senate killed this bill.
Stop posting talking out of your ass, Joe. I think we're all getting a little tired of your unoriginal cut-n-paste that you refuse to fact check.
While the Senate was Republican controlled (ie: greater than 50%), they didn't have the overall numbers necessary to pass the bill. Is it 2/3? Sorry, my civics history is a bit foggy!
The tree-huggers are to blame for the fact that foreign countries will be drilling in the Gulf of Mexico before we will. And which side caters to the hippies that just won't die? The Dems.
Don't get me wrong, both sides are just as full of different colored shit, but you can't throw this into any lap but the Liberals.
-
240, you seem well versed in politics, do you know how bills work in congress? When the bill is first drawn up, it must make its way through several committees, which may not be majority republican. After it has made its way through usually 3 or 4 committees, different senators attach smaller bills to it, and then let it ride to vote. So even if the bill did make it to vote, lets assume, half of the house is present to vote. If some of the house doesn't like what was tacked onto that bill at the end, then whats to say they will vote for it. On top of all that, what senate/house member wants to get attacked by the liberal media for making that bill? The only reason the liberals are not freaking out about the proposed bill now is because gas is stupid expensive. Politics aren't black and white like you always seem to make them 240.
-
you can throw all the blame at greedy oil companies not liberals or repubs. Simply drilling all over for oil will not help the problem, we need to get off oil and its a good thing that prices are geting this high because it will force us to become more serious about using other means for energy. u can drill and cut down all the trees you want its just delaying the inevitable. So what you will have is in 20 years barely any oil left on the planet no trees left on the planet but gas still at over 5 bucks a gallon.
-
12 times this bill was suggested in the last 7 years.
It keeps getting killed in senate.
I'm all for drilling the fvck out of alaska, I have no worry with that.
Bush managed to start a war with lies, he let 911 happen, and he's borrowed $5 trillion from China... He does whatever the fck he wants. Do you SERIOUSLY think we're not drilling because "the liberal media whines about it?"
The lib media whines about everything, and they've whined about the war WAY MORE than they have about drilling.
You're passing the blame. Bush ran shit for 7 years and didn't drill. That's because it would have been 5 years of net losses for the oil companies to set that shit up. Iraq, on the other hand, used US taxpayer dollars to fund exxon and friends cutting up 80% of iraqi fields. Wake up, and accept the fact Bush preferred to dig our oil, than theirs.
-
Haha, 240 you take everything you know and twist it into what you believe. The united states and its oil companies have not seen a single drop if iraqi oil, that my friend is a fact. Alaska isn't where the oil is at btw 240, the oil is in the gulf my friend. The oil companies would be more than content to get their hands on that good stuff, but frankly, until a problem is thrown in front of the american publics face, they dont want anything to do with it. Thats why a bill hasn't been passed.
-
240, you seem well versed in politics, do you know how bills work in congress? When the bill is first drawn up, it must make its way through several committees, which may not be majority republican.
no. all committees have the same overall makeup as the corresponding house.
however, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to end a filibuster, therefore anything controversial requires 60 of 100 votes to pass the Senate.
but drilling offshore is a bit more complicated that people like Coach make it out to be. first states have a say in the matter for the first few miles. (conservatives love to talk about states rights, except when it doesn't suit them) and many Republicans have voted against oil drilling when it comes to their own state.
There is six months worth of oil in ANWR, but it would take 50 years to get it all out. On the other hand, raising fuel standards to 45 mpg for cars and 34 for light trucks would diminish demand by 2 million barrels a day, which is 10% of our current consumption.
-
Haha, 240 you take everything you know and twist it into what you believe. The united states and its oil companies have not seen a single drop if iraqi oil, that my friend is a fact. Alaska isn't where the oil is at btw 240, the oil is in the gulf my friend. The oil companies would be more than content to get their hands on that good stuff, but frankly, until a problem is thrown in front of the american publics face, they dont want anything to do with it. Thats why a bill hasn't been passed.
we're in final negotiations to split iraqi oil 40/40/20. Hydrocarbon treaty. look it up. china gets 20%. US gets 40 to 80%, depending on which version we make them agree to. Cheney sat down with oil company CEOs before 911 and split up iraqi oil fields. We are going to own oil exploration rights, they will sell to us at a price we set, in US dollars. The war in iraq was about keeping the dollar relevant, as many of us know. not about silly WMD or other fairy tales.
Joe is a former dem/clinton voter. He says he's okay with us stealing Iraqi oil, since it wasn't the ONLY reason we are there. I guess if I break into your house and mop the floor before stealing your Xbox, ou can't be mad, huh?
We have 41 permanent bases in Iraq, that became official 2 weeks ago. Official oil will be next. bush will declare victory in oct 08, the pentagon released that info over a year ago. Declare a win, it helps Mccain in the general election. Come down to the politics board, umbrella. learn a few things :)
-
you can throw all the blame at greedy oil companies not liberals or repubs. Simply drilling all over for oil will not help the problem, we need to get off oil and its a good thing that prices are geting this high because it will force us to become more serious about using other means for energy. u can drill and cut down all the trees you want its just delaying the inevitable. So what you will have is in 20 years barely any oil left on the planet no trees left on the planet but gas still at over 5 bucks a gallon.
Oil Companies? Their profit margin is 4%.. not much. State and local taxes are the ones reaping the benefit of this fiasco. California will bring in over $5billion just from the taxes alone. England has a 58% gas tax.
-
we're in final negotiations to split iraqi oil 40/40/20. Hydrocarbon treaty. look it up. china gets 20%. US gets 40 to 80%, depending on which version we make them agree to. Cheney sat down with oil company CEOs before 911 and split up iraqi oil fields. We are going to own oil exploration rights, they will sell to us at a price we set, in US dollars. The war in iraq was about keeping the dollar relevant, as many of us know. not about silly WMD or other fairy tales.
Joe is a former dem/clinton voter. He says he's okay with us stealing Iraqi oil, since it wasn't the ONLY reason we are there. I guess if I break into your house and mop the floor before stealing your Xbox, ou can't be mad, huh?
We have 41 permanent bases in Iraq, that became official 2 weeks ago. Official oil will be next. bush will declare victory in oct 08, the pentagon released that info over a year ago. Declare a win, it helps Mccain in the general election. Come down to the politics board, umbrella. learn a few things :)
STFU with that spin Rob. It was his first term and 6months after I regreted it and switched. Quit with Olberman spin.
-
dorian trained harder than ronnie
-
He can go fuck himself that off shore drilling will help stop terrorism. That is so played out. FUcking America funded Obama directly, fucking America met with Hussein numerous times. America is the fucking terrorist.
-
STFU with that spin Rob.
You cut n paste ten Rush articles daily, and I'm the one with the spin?
Start a survey, joe, Ask getbig who knows their shit and who is full of shit.
-
240 stop acting like you're an authority on this stuff. You give your opinions just like everyone else. No more no less.
-
The main problem with drilling is its high cost and low yield. It is very difficult to drill in these areas. There is also the problem of ecological damage as a result of drilling which I think is pretty important especially to the fishing industry if you want to look at it terms of dollars and cents. Contaminants are also a problem, not only to human health but other animals as well. Its a band aid approach. The oil companies who are for it are simply oil speculators who use government money as subsidies to strike it rich under the guise of cheaper fuel prices. If these companies can drill without harming the environment or using my tax dollars as subsidies than I might take their proposals into consideration.
On as side note, the most annoying complainers when it comes to gas prices are those individuals who have chosen to drive around in SUV s and Trucks which get 10mpg.
-
I couldn't care less who's fault it has been historically. the point is that we have to drill our own resources. China, India and Cuba think offshore drilling will make a difference and they are doing it in the Atlantic on the cuban side. So...other countries are drilling near our waters and stealing resources. Wake up people.
There will be a debate on how much the drilling will decrease prices but the fact is that there will be some decrease...and our state's (as in alaska or FLA) economy will get a boost with revenue and jobs. The simple fact that we are drilling will probably bring down oil prices some. Plus, we can decrease imports from the middle east. This one is farily simple IMO.
http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659
(nearly 600,000 americans have signed this petition so far)
-
As a responce to the side note, I agree that if you want to save $ personally, don't buy an SUV. However, the biggest issue is the cost of trucking, shipping and receiving for business. Also, airlines. Its not just our personal vehicles.
I am all for increasing fuel emmisions but it only fixes part of the problem.
-
As a responce to the side note, I agree that if you want to save $ personally, don't buy an SUV. However, the biggest issue is the cost of trucking, shipping and receiving for business. Also, airlines. Its not just our personal vehicles.
I am all for increasing fuel emmisions but it only fixes part of the problem.
your absolutely correct and I should have noted that.
-
-
Don't get me wrong, both sides are just as full of different colored shit, but you can't throw this into any lap but the Liberals.
The GOP liberals are equally to blame.
The wealthy power elite whose fortunes are tied to oil have to make the decision to invest in whatever America's 'next energy' will be. They're going to make untold billions on those investments, but they have to do it.
-
I couldn't care less who's fault it has been historically. the point is that we have to drill our own resources. China, India and Cuba think offshore drilling will make a difference and they are doing it in the Atlantic on the cuban side. So...other countries are drilling near our waters and stealing resources. Wake up people.
There will be a debate on how much the drilling will decrease prices but the fact is that there will be some decrease...and our state's (as in alaska or FLA) economy will get a boost with revenue and jobs. The simple fact that we are drilling will probably bring down oil prices some. Plus, we can decrease imports from the middle east. This one is farily simple IMO.
http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659
(nearly 600,000 americans have signed this petition so far)
I had wanted to respond to this earlier but I actually went to the gym. From what I have read the predicted yield from drilling would not substantial enough to break the yolk of middle east oil dependency simply because the process of obtaining it is so cost prohibitive. It will take a tremendous amount of time and resources to recover the oil and this cost will ultimately be transfered to the consumer. Drilling in Alaska is particularly destructive and expensive because of the nature of the oil which as I mentioned previously is very difficult to get at and the technologies for getting at it has not been perfected. You can't just poke a hole in the ground and oil comes out. What your looking at it a great deal of time devoted to research and development, time which in my opinion would be better spend on researching alternative fuels; perhaps nuclear technolgoies.
-
The GOP liberals are equally to blame.
The wealthy power elite whose fortunes are tied to oil have to make the decision to invest in whatever America's 'next energy' will be. They're going to make untold billions on those investments, but they have to do it.
nah just a few million lol
-
.....It's your fault >:(
Offshore Oil Drilling to Get Another Look in Congress
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
E-Mail Respond Print Share:
WASHINGTON — With oil and gas prices reaching record highs and little relief in sight, Republican members of Congress are looking at a long-sought, but so far unsuccessful plan to open American shores up to more petroleum exploration.
Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa. is leading the charge Wednesday, when he'll push for an amendment to a spending bill that would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.
"For 27 years, Congress has deliberately locked up vast offshore oil and natural gas reserves," Peterson said, according to USA Today. "With the price at the pump increasing daily — with no end in sight — and the cost of natural gas trading at record levels, Congress needs to unlock these reserves."
Most oil production and exploration has been banned since 1981.
According to Peterson's office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.
Peterson is not alone in his desire to open up the shelf. An effort to unlock the resources has been underway in Congress in recent years, and several interest groups are backing the effort, too.
"Tapping America's huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on gasoline prices," Greg Schnacke, President of Americans for American Energy, said in a news release, adding: "With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS should be developed."
But the proposal has faced staunch opposition from environmental groups from states where the shorelines are under consideration for drilling, like Florida.
Sierra Club lands program director Athan Manuel told a House committee Wednesday that drilling has been unsuccessful in driving costs down.
"The disappointing part about some of the energy policies being promoted (is) that it calls for more drilling when drilling really is the problem. And all we've got to show for pretty aggressive (domestic) drilling for the last 35 years is, again, $4 for a gallon of gas," Manuel said, adding "since the first Arab oil shock in the 1970s, the U.S. has produced almost 90 billion barrels of oil since then, so we've tried drilling our way out of the problem and it just hasn't worked."
Environment Florida spokeswoman Holly Binns told the Media General news group that offshore drilling has no immediate impact on prices.
"It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply,” Binns said, advocating renewable energy sources.
Democrats are holding their own series of events on Capitol Hill Wednesday to focus attention on global warming and energy independence, but drilling is not on the agenda. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday ongoing calls for more drilling "is the Johnny One-Note of the Republican Party."
Not surprisingly, the issue has spilled into the ream of presidential politics as well.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., criticized Democrats, including fellow Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., over recent comments Obama made regarding gas prices.
The comments that McConnell referred to were given during an interview with CNBC. Discussing rising gasoline prices, Obama said: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.
Obama also said that "if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly U.S. automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now.
McConnell, honing in on Obama's referral to "gradual" price increases, said Obama's remarks are evidence that Obama believes "rising gas prices aren't the problem. The problem, he suggested, is that they've gone up too fast. He said he would prefer a gradual adjustment."
He continued: "Whether it's shutting down domestic exploration in large areas both onshore and offshore, instituting a moratorium on oil shale development, increasing the gas tax, or refusing to pursue coal to liquids, Democrats long ago implemented a 'gradual adjustment' on gas prices that's reflected today in the $4.05 Americans are paying for a gallon of gas."
dude seriously it scares me that people like you are allowed to vote.
bench
-
While the Senate was Republican controlled (ie: greater than 50%), they didn't have the overall numbers necessary to pass the bill. Is it 2/3? Sorry, my civics history is a bit foggy!
You are correct. A bill needs 2/3 or the vote in both houses to pass, then it has to be signed by the president. If he veto's the bill, it then needs 3/4 of the vote form both houses to pass.
This is a problem most Americans seem to be unaware of. Just because one side has technical controll of congress, doesn't mean they have full control. Since 90's when the Republicans took controll of congress, to present day where Democrats posses the majority, neither side has had enough of their people in to make that much of a difference...there have been several years where the difference was only a couple people on one side or the other...hard to get 2/3 of the vote that way, and forget about 3/4.
The real problem is the American peoples inability to understand how our system works. I've heard many people say they don't want either side to have too much power...they like the fact that even though one side has a majority that it's still close...they often even say they like it when the house is controlled by one part and the White House by another...tell me how this makes sense? How is anything ever supposed to really get done?
The tree-huggers are to blame for the fact that foreign countries will be drilling in the Gulf of Mexico before we will. And which side caters to the hippies that just won't die? The Dems.
Don't get me wrong, both sides are just as full of different colored shit, but you can't throw this into any lap but the Liberals.
Can't argue with this at all. If it were not for this, America would have been self-sufficient a long, long time ago.
-
You are correct. A bill needs 2/3 or the vote in both houses to pass, then it has to be signed by the president. If he veto's the bill, it then needs 3/4 of the vote form both houses to pass.
um, no.
it takes 50% + 1 votes to pass a bill in both the House and the Senate. However, it takes 60 votes (which is not 2/3rds) to end a filibuster in the Senate, if the minority chooses to stage one.
To override a veto, it takes 2/3rds of each house.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
-
um, no.
it takes 50% + 1 votes to pass a bill in both the House and the Senate. However, it takes 60 votes (which is not 2/3rds) to end a filibuster in the Senate, if the minority chooses to stage one.
To override a veto, it takes 2/3rds of each house.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
That link you provided only talks about Amendments. But you're right, I was thinking of Amendments when I posted my comments, but it's still harder then the way you made it sound for a bill to pass.
You need 50%+1 in both houses. 435 members in the house, 100 in the senate...and a problem that often arises is that not everyone votes on all the bills...more don't vote more often then vote. .unless a huge vote like say appropriations. Point being, it can be hard to get the 50% in both the house and senate, plus presidentail approval.
-
.....It's your fault >:(
Offshore Oil Drilling to Get Another Look in Congress
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
E-Mail Respond Print Share:
WASHINGTON — With oil and gas prices reaching record highs and little relief in sight, Republican members of Congress are looking at a long-sought, but so far unsuccessful plan to open American shores up to more petroleum exploration.
Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa. is leading the charge Wednesday, when he'll push for an amendment to a spending bill that would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.
"For 27 years, Congress has deliberately locked up vast offshore oil and natural gas reserves," Peterson said, according to USA Today. "With the price at the pump increasing daily — with no end in sight — and the cost of natural gas trading at record levels, Congress needs to unlock these reserves."
Most oil production and exploration has been banned since 1981.
According to Peterson's office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.
Peterson is not alone in his desire to open up the shelf. An effort to unlock the resources has been underway in Congress in recent years, and several interest groups are backing the effort, too.
"Tapping America's huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on gasoline prices," Greg Schnacke, President of Americans for American Energy, said in a news release, adding: "With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS should be developed."
But the proposal has faced staunch opposition from environmental groups from states where the shorelines are under consideration for drilling, like Florida.
Sierra Club lands program director Athan Manuel told a House committee Wednesday that drilling has been unsuccessful in driving costs down.
"The disappointing part about some of the energy policies being promoted (is) that it calls for more drilling when drilling really is the problem. And all we've got to show for pretty aggressive (domestic) drilling for the last 35 years is, again, $4 for a gallon of gas," Manuel said, adding "since the first Arab oil shock in the 1970s, the U.S. has produced almost 90 billion barrels of oil since then, so we've tried drilling our way out of the problem and it just hasn't worked."
Environment Florida spokeswoman Holly Binns told the Media General news group that offshore drilling has no immediate impact on prices.
"It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply,” Binns said, advocating renewable energy sources.
Democrats are holding their own series of events on Capitol Hill Wednesday to focus attention on global warming and energy independence, but drilling is not on the agenda. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday ongoing calls for more drilling "is the Johnny One-Note of the Republican Party."
Not surprisingly, the issue has spilled into the ream of presidential politics as well.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., criticized Democrats, including fellow Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., over recent comments Obama made regarding gas prices.
The comments that McConnell referred to were given during an interview with CNBC. Discussing rising gasoline prices, Obama said: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.
Obama also said that "if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly U.S. automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now.
McConnell, honing in on Obama's referral to "gradual" price increases, said Obama's remarks are evidence that Obama believes "rising gas prices aren't the problem. The problem, he suggested, is that they've gone up too fast. He said he would prefer a gradual adjustment."
He continued: "Whether it's shutting down domestic exploration in large areas both onshore and offshore, instituting a moratorium on oil shale development, increasing the gas tax, or refusing to pursue coal to liquids, Democrats long ago implemented a 'gradual adjustment' on gas prices that's reflected today in the $4.05 Americans are paying for a gallon of gas."
sounds like your the one complaining.
-
So...other countries are drilling near our waters and stealing resources. Wake up people.
No flame, but to my knowledge it is far from stealing. The Cubans are drilling their legally owned territorial waters
The press is making it sound all dramatic "only 60 miles off Florida", which sounds so close - but that only makes it 30 miles off Cuban land. The Chinese are active yes, in conjunction with the Cubanos and with their permission.
-
No flame, but to my knowledge it is far from stealing. The Cubans are drilling their legally owned territorial waters
The press is making it sound all dramatic "only 60 miles off Florida", which sounds so close - but that only makes it 30 miles off Cuban land. The Chinese are active yes, in conjunction with the Cubanos and with their permission.
you will have to excuse them, they are americans. :D
they are so used to stealing from other countries.