House Votes To End 25-Year-Old Oil Drilling Ban
09-24-2008, 03:19 PM
#1
banned
Thread Starter
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Walnut Creek Ca..
Posts: 2,746
Car Info: heel'n toe da hoe...
House Votes To End 25-Year-Old Oil Drilling Ban
Bush planed that well. Raise gas prices to force americans to let them drill off the coasts.
WASHINGTON (AP) ― The House, responding to growing public demand for more domestic energy, voted Wednesday to end a quarter-century ban on oil and natural gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, giving Republicans a major victory on energy policy.
An extension of the ban for another year was left off a $630 billion-plus stopgap government spending bill that President Bush had threatened to veto -- possibly shutting down the government -- if the anti-drilling measure were included.
The bill was approved 370-58 and now goes to the Senate, where it is likely to be approved within the next few days, also without the drilling ban.
The decision to avoid a fight with the White House over offshore drilling marks a major shift by Democrats on energy policy and a reflection that the GOP argument for more domestic energy production had found a support among voters this election year, even though coastal states long have worried that offshore drilling might cause spills, soil beaches and threaten their tourist businesses.
Republican presidential nominee John McCain has made expanded offshore drilling a central part of his campaign, arguing that access to an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil in the off-limits Outer Continental Shelf is essential if the country is to become more energy independent.
McCain's Democratic presidential rival, Barack Obama, also has endorsed limited expansion of offshore drilling, but only as part of a broader energy package that boosts use of alternative energy sources and increases efficiency.
Lifting the offshore ban does not itself mean drilling in the offshore waters is imminent. But it could set the stage for the Interior Department to offer leases in some Atlantic federal waters as early as 2011 under its current five-year offshore drilling plan.
Democratic leaders made clear the battle over offshore drilling is far from over. Even before the House vote, Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., introduced legislation to protect Georges Bank off New England -- an area believed to have significant oil resources -- from drilling.
In the Senate, Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "We look forward to working with the next president to hammer out a final resolution of this issue."
Democrats could reinstate the ban next year as part of a new spending measure. Or they could push legislation allowing limited drilling in some areas such as the southern Atlantic, with wide coastal protective buffers. But even if Democrats expand their majorities in the next Congress there's no assurance they will have the votes to reinstate the sweeping ban that has been in effect off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts since 1981.
"It is a very big step forward," declared House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, vowing to press the offshore drilling issue aggressively next year, including a push to give states a share in the billions of dollars in royalties that are likely to be collected once energy companies begin producing oil and natural gas in newly opened areas.
The Interior Department estimates about half the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil lies off the California coast.
Waters off the western beaches of Florida remain off limits to energy development, at least until 2022, under a law Congress passed two years ago that opened 8.3 million acres of the east-central Gulf to drilling.
WASHINGTON (AP) ― The House, responding to growing public demand for more domestic energy, voted Wednesday to end a quarter-century ban on oil and natural gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, giving Republicans a major victory on energy policy.
An extension of the ban for another year was left off a $630 billion-plus stopgap government spending bill that President Bush had threatened to veto -- possibly shutting down the government -- if the anti-drilling measure were included.
The bill was approved 370-58 and now goes to the Senate, where it is likely to be approved within the next few days, also without the drilling ban.
The decision to avoid a fight with the White House over offshore drilling marks a major shift by Democrats on energy policy and a reflection that the GOP argument for more domestic energy production had found a support among voters this election year, even though coastal states long have worried that offshore drilling might cause spills, soil beaches and threaten their tourist businesses.
Republican presidential nominee John McCain has made expanded offshore drilling a central part of his campaign, arguing that access to an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil in the off-limits Outer Continental Shelf is essential if the country is to become more energy independent.
McCain's Democratic presidential rival, Barack Obama, also has endorsed limited expansion of offshore drilling, but only as part of a broader energy package that boosts use of alternative energy sources and increases efficiency.
Lifting the offshore ban does not itself mean drilling in the offshore waters is imminent. But it could set the stage for the Interior Department to offer leases in some Atlantic federal waters as early as 2011 under its current five-year offshore drilling plan.
Democratic leaders made clear the battle over offshore drilling is far from over. Even before the House vote, Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., introduced legislation to protect Georges Bank off New England -- an area believed to have significant oil resources -- from drilling.
In the Senate, Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "We look forward to working with the next president to hammer out a final resolution of this issue."
Democrats could reinstate the ban next year as part of a new spending measure. Or they could push legislation allowing limited drilling in some areas such as the southern Atlantic, with wide coastal protective buffers. But even if Democrats expand their majorities in the next Congress there's no assurance they will have the votes to reinstate the sweeping ban that has been in effect off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts since 1981.
"It is a very big step forward," declared House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, vowing to press the offshore drilling issue aggressively next year, including a push to give states a share in the billions of dollars in royalties that are likely to be collected once energy companies begin producing oil and natural gas in newly opened areas.
The Interior Department estimates about half the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil lies off the California coast.
Waters off the western beaches of Florida remain off limits to energy development, at least until 2022, under a law Congress passed two years ago that opened 8.3 million acres of the east-central Gulf to drilling.
09-24-2008, 04:01 PM
#3
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In Mother Russia...
Posts: 4,024
Car Info: ...zeh car drives you!
WTF?!?!?! 
Even if they start new drilling without any more protests, the effects and benefits (if any) of that drilling will not be seen until AT LEAST 10 years or so..because they need to scout the areas, build new platforms, install them, actually start pumping, build new lines and refineries etc etc etc...by the time we see ANY effect of this, the current situation will go through multiples of stages...Has not Bush f-ed us over enough and filled enough of his cronies pockets???
Even if they start new drilling without any more protests, the effects and benefits (if any) of that drilling will not be seen until AT LEAST 10 years or so..because they need to scout the areas, build new platforms, install them, actually start pumping, build new lines and refineries etc etc etc...by the time we see ANY effect of this, the current situation will go through multiples of stages...Has not Bush f-ed us over enough and filled enough of his cronies pockets???
Last edited by LxJLthr; 09-24-2008 at 04:06 PM.
09-24-2008, 04:16 PM
#5
VIP Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 6,155
Car Info: R.I.P 03 aspen white wrx
im all for it = im leaving Cali and all its hippies 
you guys crack me up
those new platforms will be up and running in 6yrs or less and why do we have to go cleaner now? please don't tell me you believe in global warming :/
bush is homies or not id rather buy American oil then terrorist oil...
you guys crack me upthose new platforms will be up and running in 6yrs or less and why do we have to go cleaner now? please don't tell me you believe in global warming :/
bush is homies or not id rather buy American oil then terrorist oil...
Last edited by zumnwrx; 09-24-2008 at 04:21 PM.
09-24-2008, 04:17 PM
#6
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In Mother Russia...
Posts: 4,024
Car Info: ...zeh car drives you!
Here is my logistical rational of what it would take to bring the oil to market with a nice warm & cozy assumption that it would be paid for US industries and not foreign contracts..
...Let's assume they actually do everything in an environmental friendly matter (=extra $$$$$), no one knows really how much or where any deposits are located because of the ban. So, they will need to do countless research (= $$$$) to even figure out where to drill and than it is still no guarantee there will be as much oil as expected (= opportunity cost $$$$)...and even at current best estimates there is no where enough to make a huge ding compared to what comes out of middle east or even Russia...in the meantime, that wasted $$$$ can be put towards better alternatives with more favorable (compared to off shore drilling) results...
...Let's assume they actually do everything in an environmental friendly matter (=extra $$$$$), no one knows really how much or where any deposits are located because of the ban. So, they will need to do countless research (= $$$$) to even figure out where to drill and than it is still no guarantee there will be as much oil as expected (= opportunity cost $$$$)...and even at current best estimates there is no where enough to make a huge ding compared to what comes out of middle east or even Russia...in the meantime, that wasted $$$$ can be put towards better alternatives with more favorable (compared to off shore drilling) results...
Last edited by LxJLthr; 09-24-2008 at 04:40 PM.
09-24-2008, 04:20 PM
#7
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In Mother Russia...
Posts: 4,024
Car Info: ...zeh car drives you!
Sorry to vent, but not a lot gets under my skin...and I understand the unfortunate nature of politics...but outright stupidity and ignorance that is exercised just to pacify the public that knows **** (and is complaining it can no longer fill up their SUVs) just blows all my gaskets...
09-24-2008, 04:21 PM
#8
VIP Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: pew, pew, pew!!!
Posts: 17,617
Car Info: nonplussed
here is my copy/paste of what I posted in the ANWAR thread.
I still have a lot of questions about this whole thing. Liberals report that there are a huge amount of oil leases that are not being exploited. Fine, the argument is that they are low producing. So let's give the big oil companies the benefit of the doubt (not sure why we would do that) that they are not holding out on drilling on existing leases just so they can open up previously locked areas.
Would all of these new oil leases be given to US companies? No. I would venture to say that a shocking percentage would not. So what does that mean? We are leasing our oil rights to foreign companies so that they can sell our own oil back to us? Or worst case, free market... they are selling it to whoever pays the most for it. So we are leasing our oil rights to foreign companies to sell to other foreign countries? Are there agreements that our oil can only be sold back to us? Or even a percentage has to come to the US. Doubt it. How is that lessening our reliance on foreign oil?
Would all of these new oil leases be given to US companies? No. I would venture to say that a shocking percentage would not. So what does that mean? We are leasing our oil rights to foreign companies so that they can sell our own oil back to us? Or worst case, free market... they are selling it to whoever pays the most for it. So we are leasing our oil rights to foreign companies to sell to other foreign countries? Are there agreements that our oil can only be sold back to us? Or even a percentage has to come to the US. Doubt it. How is that lessening our reliance on foreign oil?
09-24-2008, 04:25 PM
#9
VIP Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 6,155
Car Info: R.I.P 03 aspen white wrx
yes its going to cost $ but its not our $ thats left to company's to pay out...
and when it comes online it HAS to compete with the global oil market so it cant cost a guzzilion bucks
if its seen not be cost efficient then no one will drill and you have nothing to worry about
and when it comes online it HAS to compete with the global oil market so it cant cost a guzzilion bucks
if its seen not be cost efficient then no one will drill and you have nothing to worry about
09-24-2008, 04:28 PM
#11
VIP Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 6,155
Car Info: R.I.P 03 aspen white wrx
most likely the oil drilled in the US will be put on the global market
im not 100% on that but since we demand that other countries do it, i don't see how we wouldn't
and yes not everyone complies but you can be damn sure we will
BUT another thing you all are not thinking is what world will we be living in 10 years from now? having our own oil could be crucial to our national security...
with out oil this country cannot defend itself
im not 100% on that but since we demand that other countries do it, i don't see how we wouldn't
and yes not everyone complies but you can be damn sure we will
BUT another thing you all are not thinking is what world will we be living in 10 years from now? having our own oil could be crucial to our national security...
with out oil this country cannot defend itself
Last edited by zumnwrx; 09-24-2008 at 04:33 PM.
09-24-2008, 04:30 PM
#12
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Los Altos, CA
Posts: 185
Car Info: 2008 STi OBP
im all for it = im leaving Cali and all its hippies you guys crack me up
those new platforms will be up and running in 6yrs or less and why do we have to go cleaner now? please don't tell me you believe in global warming :/
bush is homies or not id rather buy American oil then terrorist oil...
you guys crack me upthose new platforms will be up and running in 6yrs or less and why do we have to go cleaner now? please don't tell me you believe in global warming :/
bush is homies or not id rather buy American oil then terrorist oil...
The only winners in this are Bush/Cheney and their oil industry buddies. Even putting this much energy into the conversation about offshore drilling has distracted the nation from putting money into the real future of energy, which is NOT fossil fuel. Have fun on that flat earth you seem to be on.
09-24-2008, 04:31 PM
#13
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In Mother Russia...
Posts: 4,024
Car Info: ...zeh car drives you!
yes its going to cost $ but its not our $ thats left to company's to pay out...
and when it comes online it HAS to compete with the global oil market so it cant cost a guzzilion bucks
if its seen not be cost efficient then no one will drill and you have nothing to worry about
and when it comes online it HAS to compete with the global oil market so it cant cost a guzzilion bucks
if its seen not be cost efficient then no one will drill and you have nothing to worry about
09-24-2008, 04:39 PM
#15
VIP Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 6,155
Car Info: R.I.P 03 aspen white wrx
hello its not flat
it round and very old... older then the human life form and its been thru numerous climate changes that we know nothing about.
so if your a global warming lover then you've been scammed
im not one to cut old growth trees or dump oil down the sewer drains but im not going to listen to D average science students (Al Gore)
it round and very old... older then the human life form and its been thru numerous climate changes that we know nothing about.
so if your a global warming lover then you've been scammed
im not one to cut old growth trees or dump oil down the sewer drains but im not going to listen to D average science students (Al Gore)