McCain promotes drilling for oil off U.S. coast

[peejay 327]

McCain promotes drilling for oil off U.S. coast

Republican White House hopeful describes Obama as 'Dr. No' of energy

The Associated Press

updated 4:43 a.m. CT, Tues., July. 29, 2008

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. - Republican John McCain said Monday that drilling for oil off the U.S. coast is an essential part of any plan to lower gas prices and reduce dependence on foreign sources, and he criticized Democrat Barack Obama for opposing it.

"We all know that a comprehensive solution is wind, tide, solar, all the other things all of us believe in," McCain told reporters after touring San Joaquin Facilities Management, an oil company in the California desert that yields 1,100 barrels a day. "In the meantime, as we develop all of these alternate sources of energy, it will be vital that we continue oil production at a high level, including offshore drilling."

McCain called Obama the "Dr. No" of energy. But McCain once was too.

Just last month, McCain reversed himself after years of opposition and called for lifting the federal ban on oil drilling off the U.S. coast. The Arizona senator promotes energy development as a way to boost the economy, and a recent poll found many voters are open to offshore drilling as a way to ease gasoline prices.

But McCain's views could be troublesome in California, which has seen its share of catastrophic offshore oil spills. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a McCain ally, opposes such drilling and in a television interview indicated he would be open one day to serving as the "energy czar" in an Obama administration.

Obama opposes drilling in U.S. coastal waters, and says allowing exploration now wouldn't affect gasoline prices for at least five years. Spokesman Hari Sevugan said Obama's energy program would, among other things, force oil companies to drill in areas they've already leased from the government.

McCain also insisted the technology exists to quickly bring oil produced offshore to market, even as the federal government has estimated it would take years for new offshore oil exploration to yield results.

McCain has said governors should have the right to veto proposed drilling off their state coasts. Some, including Republican Charlie Crist of Florida, have said they would support such drilling.

Fundraisers

Last week, McCain's campaign scrapped a visit to an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico as Hurricane Dolly bore down on Louisiana. The campaign cited weather for the cancellation, which also came after a Liberian tanker spilled 419,000 gallons of oil into the Mississippi River outside New Orleans.

At a campaign fundraising luncheon Monday, McCain said a comprehensive energy plan, including his proposal to suspend the federal gasoline tax for the summer, would bring the greatest relief to low-income citizens hardest hit by high gas prices.

McCain was in California to attend several fundraisers.

In San Francisco, he reiterated his support for an Arizona ballot initiative overturning the state's affirmative action programs. And he straddled the question of whether he would support a California measure banning same-sex marriage.

McCain said he opposed same-sex marriage but believed it was up to states to establish marriage laws. Last month, the California Supreme Court cleared the way for gay couples to marry in the state.

"I do not believe what is decided in California should be imposed on my state of Arizona," McCain said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25895866

[Teacher Mark 53]

Talk about drilling and gay marriage?

[mendeleev 69]

Shouldn't the States whose coastlines would be polluted from oil spills have a definitive say in whether drilling goes on off their shores?

I doubt the feds will adequately reimburse states for external costs associated with drilling -- they haven't in the past. Why should the feds be allowed put this unfunded mandate on coastal states?

[peejay 327]

Shouldn't the States whose coastlines would be polluted from oil spills have a definitive say in whether drilling goes on off their shores?

I doubt the feds will adequately reimburse states for external costs associated with drilling -- they haven't in the past. Why should the feds be allowed put this unfunded mandate on coastal states?

Because these tracts of offshore acreage are in federal waters. They belong to the American people, not the states. However, the states should receive some compensation for the inconvenience.

I've been working on production facilities on the Gulf of Mexico in federal waters off of Texas and Louisiana for 25 years. State waters are just a small strip of offshore waters close to land. A vast majority of the acreage mentioned is in federal waters administered by the Department of Interior's US Minerals Management Service. They are the regulatory agency with jurisdiction. The oil companies lease the tracts from the federal government by bidding on them during lease sales and also pay royalties on any oil and gas production associated with the tracts. These assets go to the US treasury.

[mendeleev 69]

Point of fact, states that have had big oil spills on their coasts were *not* compensated by feds for lost economic activity. That might not be so important on the TX or LA coasts, but the economic costs associated with offshore oil mining may be significant in places like FL, CA and on up the east coast. The current proposals do not offer any meaningful protection to the States.

Why is it so important to open more sites to offshore exploration when so many of the offshore leases that have been let have not been explored by the leaseholders?

Why does anyone think that a new offshore lease will result in any new production in less than 5-10 years? Why does anyone think that will help prices now?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

George W. Bush, in a recent Saturday radio address, provided a clear example of how truthiness, rather than truth, reigns in the efforts to promote oil exploration and drilling in the outer continental shelf.

From that radio chat:

First, we should expand American oil production by increasing access to offshore exploration on the outer continental shelf, or OCS. Experts believe that the OCS that is currently off limits could produce enough oil to match America's current production for almost 10 years.

Wow. The OCS would match today's U.S. oil production for almost 10 years? Want lower oil prices? Want energy independence? The answer is clear: Drill the OCS, now! That is, clear until you examine what the experts actually are saying.

A report last year by the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration said 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. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017.

Washington Post, July 13, 2008

Bush stated, quite bluntly, that opening up the OCS could match today's total U.S. oil production for a decade. He failed to mention that this would have minimal, if any impact, on America's energy posture for decades to come. The administration's own experts, who are far from enemies of the oil industry and oil production, state that this move would not begin to produce oil until a decade from now and that it would "not have a significant impact on domestic ... production ... before 2030." And, in 2030, that drilling would give us only a 3 percent increase over the 5.1 million or so barrels we currently produce. The EIA estimates that additional offshore drilling would add 200,000 barrels to the 2030 production. To place this into context, U.S. consumption is about 21 million barrels per day. Thus, the entire Republican effort to open up offshore drilling is about providing 1 percent of today's consumption levels, 22 years from now. Or, if you were to go and conceive a child right this second, you'd save a few cents per gallon and realize a minuscule savings at the pump when you drive down to see that child graduate from college.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/92542

[Peikko 1,575]

Why is it so important to open more sites to offshore exploration when so many of the offshore leases that have been let have not been explored by the leaseholders?

Why does anyone think that a new offshore lease will result in any new production in less than 5-10 years? Why does anyone think that will help prices now?

I think the explanation is that it gives these people a sense that something can be done, that this isn't the situation that has been predicted for years, that somehow the energy situation isn't a real crisis but an invention of the liberal elite. In other words, these people don't want to make any personal changes in the way they use energy but want things to go on being how they have always been, or at least they have been for the past 60 years or so.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

McCain called Obama the "Dr. No" of energy.

So Obama will be trying to disrupt NASA space launches while crushing his political opponents to death with his metal hands?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

[Peikko 1,575]

That's funny, but the humour is purile because it extends this ridulous notion that not only are Democrats responsible for the gas shortages, but that they support arab terrorism movements, if not knowingly, then by default. Hello, knock knock knock, wake up to the real world.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ah yes - that old chestnut

Why take responsibility for anything when you can blame blame blame.

How tiresome.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Number 6 is here.... there's hope for wind power after all.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Number 6 is here.... there's hope for wind power after all.

Don't put yourself down there mate...

While my wind only comes out of one orifice (the back one), yours comes out of at least 3.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That's funny, but the humour is purile because it extends this ridulous notion that not only are Democrats responsible for the gas shortages, but that they support arab terrorism movements, if not knowingly, then by default. Hello, knock knock knock, wake up to the real world.

Yep. The problem won't be solved thru partisan finger pointing. The real finger pointing should be at Big Oil and their friends in Washington.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's funny, but the humour is purile because it extends this ridulous notion that not only are Democrats responsible for the gas shortages, but that they support arab terrorism movements, if not knowingly, then by default. Hello, knock knock knock, wake up to the real world.

Yep. The problem won't be solved thru partisan finger pointing. The real finger pointing should be at Big Oil and their friends in Washington.

Its weird that noone ever seems to want to solve problems - except to find ways to blame people for why it isn't solved.

Pretty pathetic.