Both President Bush and John McCain called this week for more offshore oil drilling, which they previously opposed. “If congressional leaders leave for the Fourth of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act,” Bush said.
The United States does need to expand its energy production, but don’t be fooled into believing this would significantly lower gasoline prices. The federal Energy Information Administration estimates only about 16 billion barrels of oil exist in the area covered by the offshore moratorium - a drop in the bucket of the world oil supply. Even drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which Bush supports but McCain opposes, would have little impact on prices. According to the EIA, any benefits from drilling in ANWR wouldn’t be seen for five to 10 years and would amount to savings of only about 7 cents a gallon by 2027 if oil prices remain high.
Also, Bush is a bit disingenuous in blaming Democrats for the ban on offshore drilling. Though many Democrats have and do oppose the drilling, it was his father who issued a presidential executive order in 1990 banning coastal oil exploration, and Bush could rescind that order today if he chose to.
159 Comments
Another week another McCain flip-flop. The issue won’t help him with Florida voters who are evenly divided on the issue. No surprise that a national Rasmussen poll shows that those who believe offshore drilling will reduce gas prices support offshore drilling. So McCain is appealing to uninformed voters, the exact type who tend to vote Republican.
Since the oil companies know Americans are willing to pay $4 a gallon what incentive is there to reduce the cost? Besides, more oil will do absolutely nothing to curb the greed of oil commodity traders.
Treat addiction by increasing the supply of the drugs. Note that Bush - and McCain - said nothing about reducing demand. Note also nothing about alternatives.
In header:
“According to the EIA, any benefits from drilling in ANWR wouldn’t be seen for five to 10 years…”
The “benefits” from the first tiny trickle of oil production would be negligible.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/execsummary.html
“Even with nearby production infrastructure, 7 to 12 years would be needed for lease sales, permitting and environmental reviews after approval for leasing.”
“7 to 12 years” is the zero point on this hypothetical graph, 50% chance, and ignores the costs of oil production.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/figure4.html
Bush is looking for a job after this one runs out.
Competition for brush-clearing jobs is pretty intense. He needs a back-up plan.
Well, let’s see, it’s been 20 years since bans have been put on drilling.
It appears to me, if we started 20 years ago, we would have a nice supply of oil.
BTW, Norway is the 10th largest oil explorer in the world and does it environmentally safe. The U.S. can do it in the same manner.
All those Lib Dems on this board who do not want to drill for more oil, should stop driving their cars and trucks right now. They should use push mowers on their lawns.
That saves the gas for the rest of us.
Practice what you preach Libs, wean yourself off of oil now.
Or do you need 10, 15, 20 years before you wean yourself from petroleum products?
Hypocrites.
The EIA says that “technically” (ignores cost) recoverable Refuge oil would
at best only replace other declining domestic sources.
And they admit that OPEC controls world oil prices.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/results.html
Do we want to rely on an indefensible supply that can be shutdown by a drunk with a hunting rifle?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1584553.stm
And that was during heightened security.
So cosmos, when are you going to stop driving your petroleum based car?
You don’t have natural gas in you home now do you?
Do you use a push mower to cut your lawn and hand trimmers to edge it?
“Do you use a push mower to cut your lawn and hand trimmers to edge it?”
Silly rabbit, they have maintainace people at the asylum to do those things.
Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’,
Higher energy efficiency would “produce” many times more than the Arctic Refuge — sooner, and faster.
And it’s cheaper, more reliable, guaranteed, and cleaner.
‘E01-04, Fool’s Gold in Alaska—annotated, Foreign Affairs (PDF-980k)’ at,
http://old.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php
“The president (Bush) said in 2001 that no new drilling would occur off the Florida coast “under my watch.” ”
FLIP
FLOP
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/41451.html
So Ben and cosmos,
When are you going to get off your fat Liberal asses and stop using petroleum based automobiles and start walking or riding a bike?
Still using that gasoline powered mower instead of a push mower?
Got some natural gas pumping into your house?
Still consuming more than you share of oil eh cosmos?
cosmos, get off the Internet, you are using electricity and petroleum based products (plastics.)
Shouldn’t you be living in a shack in Montana cosmos? You know, like your mentor, the anti-technology unabomber.
Regular - I don’t think anyone has suggested we use ZERO - just that we reduce. I don’t know about cosmos but I do know that my useage is significantly lower than average and that I have acted to reduce further.
So get off your fat CON ass and do likewise. Shouldn’t you be down in Oklahoma City following the lead of your mentor, Tim McVeigh?
“Shouldn’t you be down in Oklahoma City following the lead of your mentor, Tim McVeigh?”
Poor ben. This is not the one I knew.
I use about 1/2 tank a gas per month Ben.
McVeigh isn’t my mentor and I knew people that were in the Federal Building that died, not funny.
” You know, like your mentor, the anti-technology unabomber.”
Upon what do you base that claim Regular?
Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted June 18, 2008 at 1:51 pm
“Well, let’s see, it’s been 20 years since bans have been put on drilling.”
————
Almost 30, re offshore offshore drilling, by Congress.
George H.W. Bush (Republican) repeated it, in 1990.
‘Bush urges Congress to end offshore oil drill ban’
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1846404220080618
“The U.S. Congress banned most offshore drilling in 1981. Bush’s father, former president George H.W. Bush, followed suit with an executive order banning drilling in the wake of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska — the worst tanker spill in U.S. history.”
Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’,
I use so little gasoline, I add Sta-bil to the tank to help keep it fresh.
bth posted June 18, 2008 at 2:50 pm
“Upon what do you base that claim Regular?”
—————
My advocating the use of technology to reduce energy demand.
The funny thing is that regular whines when his own tactics are returned to him.
Still waiting for a con to acknowledge that it was a Republican president that issued an executive order banning off shore drilling. Still waiting for a con to acknowledge that a Republican president COULD rescind that order. Still waiting for a con to acknowledge that a Republican FAMILY is behind the ban on drilling off the Florida Gulf Coast.
Those damned Republicans - just a bunch of whiny tree-huggers.
And hypocrites.
McCain was against this just 3 WEEKS AGO!
McCluer - “Shouldn’t you be living in a shack in Montana cosmos? You know, like your mentor, the anti-technology unabomber.”
Ben - “Shouldn’t you be down in Oklahoma City following the lead of your mentor, Tim McVeigh?”
So what does McCluer do? He acts all indignant and makes a feeble attempt to call Ben out for his comment.
Jeez, and he wonders why he is so often called a hypocrite.
Damn.
Glad to see McCain and the president coming around on this issue. It’s OK I suppose to be concerned about not being appearing consistent (Oooo, the dread flip flop)but a $100 a barrel change in the price of oil is a change in facts that changes everything.
Are we too good here in America to do our part to contribute to the oil supply?
Big difference, the unabomber was an anti-technology guy who promoted that society get away from nuclear, fossil fuels and other inventions of technology that deplete natutral resources. I doubt anyone here even has a remote connection to the unabomber.
McVeigh was a terrorist, plan an simple with a motive to kill many people which he did.
I lived in Midwest City, Oklahoma at the time and knew the people over in the USDA department over there. As well, some children who went to our church lost their fathers in that bomb blast.
So yes, I will get indignant about the Oklahoma City Bombing.
So pardon me if I get a bit bothered about something I’ve had personal experience with.
As far as cosmos acting in the same philosophical venue as the unabomber, yes he does, in ideology and in concept.
I, however, am not a terrorist nor plotted to mass murder people which apparently Ben missed the entire point of the analogy.
But hey, you know, duh Libs don’t care if people die, must have been those corrupt government officials right?
Anything to prove a political point eh?
And for some reason, this issue about off-shore drilling didn’t come up until after 2006.
I thought the GOP congress would have been proactive enough to take care of this before the silly libs took over congress. After all, they are so good at predicting the future.
But for some strange coincidence, this issue didn’t come up until a democratic congress was in charge and 4 months before an election. Surely I am only being cynical
Good afternoon Clark!
You can make about any point you want if you merely look at a small part of the legislative ‘train wreck’ that passes for an energy policy.
Both republicans and democrats are responsible for this mess.
We currently import gasolene. Our refining capacity is maxed out. Drilling more domestic crude is not all the answer, we need newer and bigger refineries.
Drilling for oil in ANWR would be a small help. Offshore drilling would help a little. Nuclear power plants would help a lot. Put all the ‘little helps’ together and we might become closer to energy independence.
The same logic in use that poo poo’s drilling as being very little help could be used to not develope wind farms or many other alternative energy sources.
When Bush came into office he came up with a very workable and plausible energy policy. The democrats have fought every part of it for the last 7 years. Why? Democrats look at any problem as an issue to advance their agenda. Solutions remove the issue.
WSClark,
I mostly ignore the irrational lies and false attacks that multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posts about me.
He has zero credibility, and isn’t worth the waste of time.
The greatest source of energy we have is conserving WHAT we have.
McCain flip-flopped on his self-imposed promise to ban earmarks. He promises $2 billion a year in corporate welfare for clean coal.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/McCain_calls_for_building_45_new_nu_06182008.html
Also in the article he wants 45 new nuclear reactors. This is another earmark since they’ll have to be insured by taxpayers since no insurance company will insure a nuclear reactor.
Hank Price posted,
“When Bush came into office he came up with a very workable and plausible energy policy.”
———-
His oil buddy Cheney came up with the flawed plan.
The keystone of that plan was drilling in the Arctic Refuge.
U.S. oil consumption has since risen MORE than the Refuge could supply decades from now, during a short time of PEAK production.
That is definitely NOT a “very workable and plausible energy policy”.
Wind farms do not run dry, or have “fuel cost” increases.
Higher energy efficiency does not run dry, and it’s cheaper than more drilling, and more nuclear plants.
“As far as cosmos acting in the same philosophical venue as the unabomber, yes he does, in ideology and in concept.”
The last I checked, Cosmos wasn’t sending out mail bombs or planting timed bombs to kill innocent people.
“Both republicans and democrats are responsible for this mess.”
Funny, when it is pointed out that a Republican did this or that to lead us to a problem, it becomes a “bipartisan” issue.
Now, had it been Democratic presidents that I referred to, the problem would be those “damned liberals.”
“The democrats have fought every part of it for the last 7 years.”
And the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress for six of those seven years - what did THEY do about the problem?
Nukes. Alright! Now you’re cooking with gas, so to speak.
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) - Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds “to make clean coal a reality,” measures designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91CMT0O0&show_article=1
More BS regular. I am equally indignant about the unabomber - who also was a terrorist (although not nearly as bad as McVeigh).
As for “duh Libs don’t care if people die, must have been those corrupt government officials right?
Anything to prove a political point eh?”
I would note that McVeigh was anything but a lib.
Regular - YOU are the one who opened that door. I just fired back at you. If YOU choose to liken someone to a terrorist don’t whine when the favor is returned.
Hank Price posted,
“We currently import gasolene. Our refining capacity is maxed out. Drilling more domestic crude is not all the answer, we need newer and bigger refineries.”
———-
We need EXPENSIVE “newer and bigger refineries” and the EXPENSIVE infrastructure to support them.?
Who will pay for those EXPENSIVE new refineries and infrastructures? We, the consumers will pay, with higher gas prices.
Instead of drilling more, and building EXPENSIVE new refineries/infrastructures — just cut gas demand with higher mpg.
outlander - on this you, I and McCain agree. I would expand by noting that a few weeks ago McCain spoke of additional dismantling of excess nuclear weapons. Than, via the method I have discussed before, can provide fuel for at least a couple of centuries.
Does the cost of gasoline going from $1.20/ gallon to $3.79/gallon have anything to do with the Flip Flop? Nah, couldn’t be.
“The greatest source of energy we have is conserving what we have”
-Confucious (aka JR)
Hmm, the greatest source of milk in the fridge is NOT drinking the milk that is sitting in the fridge.
We can now give the cows a break, Confucious has solved the problem of having to go to the store to get more milk.
Sounds like beating swords into ploughshares, Ben.
No Ben, you are true 60s style Lib who never grew out of his hate for anything establishment. You still hate, hate was your motive, just admit it.
You don’t use any logic in 99.9 percent of your posts Ben, you just use hate.
Yep - that is one of the terms I have used for it outlander. I have talked to some nuke engineer types and they tell me it would work. The other good thing about it is that it ‘ruins’ the high-level nuclear material for weapons purposes.
Regular - “hate was your motive, just admit it” - when you used your unabomber reference.
You don’t use any logic in 99.9 percent of your posts Regular, you just use hate.
outlander - addendum: this would be using ONLY those warheads already decommisssioned - not necessarily further disarmament. And, by creating a market for Russia’s material perhaps we keep it off the black market.
OOPS - that must mean I hate the black market people! :)
RFL posted June 18, 2008 at 4:09 pm
“Hmm, the greatest source of milk in the fridge is NOT drinking the milk that is sitting in the fridge.”
————
People can’t be “built/modified” to require fewer calories.
But vehicles CAN be built/modified to require less energy. And it’s cheaper to make them more energy efficient than buying more fuel.
‘E01-04, Fool’s Gold in Alaska—annotated, Foreign Affairs (PDF-980k)’ at,
http://old.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php
“The untapped, inexpensive “reserves” of oil-efficiency technology exceed by more than 50 times the average projection of what refuge drilling might yield.”
Jeez, Ben, didn’t you support Goldwater in the Sixties?
I wasn’t aware that Barry Goldwater was a liberal.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…………………..
I guess he MIGHT be considered a liberal compared to some of today’s “conservatives” but back then he was hard, far right.
Jeez, I never knew.
Well, Goldwater DID have what is today a very ‘liberal’ characteristic: he told the TRUTH. While true conservatives might do the same thing this new generation of neo-cons hate it.
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act” - George Orwell
“His oil buddy Cheney came up with the flawed plan.”
Actually, cosmos, my intellectually challenged friend, Cheney was merely the moderator for the National Energy Policy Developement Group. They came up with the recommendations.
“The keystone of that plan was drilling in the Arctic Refuge.”
This my incredibly honesty challenged friend is a lie. ANWR was a very small part of the plan.
“U.S. oil consumption has since risen MORE than the Refuge could supply decades from now, during a short time of PEAK production.”
So what? Are you too stupid to understand the complexity of the energy problem? Or, do you merely disengenously try to miss the point?
“That is definitely NOT a “very workable and plausible energy policy”.”
Interesting and predictable comment, build a ’straw man’ then tear him down. You have completely mischaracterized the 2001 energy recommendations.
“Wind farms do not run dry, or have “fuel cost” increases.”
What a nitwit. Wind farms need wind. The wind is not reliable for primary source of power. You need flexible, reliable backup for wind farms. The costs of operating wind farms goes up with the rise of energy costs. With the government subsidies taken into accoun electricity generated by wind farms is more expensive than nuclear power.
“Higher energy efficiency does not run dry, and it’s cheaper than more drilling, and more nuclear plants.”
This statement is illogical and stupid. You have to have energy before you can use it more efficiently. Nuclear power generating costs can be brought down with more sensible regulation. It’s still cheaper than wind farms and more reliable.
The energy recommendations from Cheney to Bush in 2001 wee very comprehensive. They included investment in the environment, more efficient use of energy, better management of productions and conservation. The dems fought it every step of the way.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf
“Americans support drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas now off limits (57%).”
Bad news, Ben,
Looks like the hildebeast isn’t going to be welcomed back to the Senate as the next ‘great white leader’!
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-takes-month-off-2008-06-17.html
“Over the past year, the percentage of Americans blaming the oil companies for skyrocketing gas prices fell from 34% to 20%”
Hard to say Hank. A lot will depend on the results of this election - both White House and Senate.
“The dems fought it every step of the way.”
And since the Republicans controlled both Houses and the presidency during the first six years, what “program” did they pass?
Eh?
““The dems fought it every step of the way.””
The point stands. Not refuted.
bth
Posted June 18, 2008 at 4:20 pm | Permalink
Regular - “hate was your motive, just admit it” - when you used your unabomber reference.
You don’t use any logic in 99.9 percent of your posts Regular, you just use hate.
———————-
Not much one for originality are we Ben?
“People can’t be “built/modified” to require fewer calories.”
Without the availability of oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power and the willingness to use those resources, the infrastructure that currently delivers the food that people need to subsist will not continue to function.
Even the production of food itself requires fossil fuels.
There is an asymptotic ceiling on efficiency of mechanized vehicles. In other words, with safefy guidelines in place,there are incremental gains in efficiency to be made, but as time goes by those gains are smaller and clearly not enough to offset the need for more fuel to continue to feed the world’s growing population.
Provided human life continues on this planet for centuries to come, someone will eventually drill for the oil off the continental shelf of North America. Either by the permission of the United States government or by the foreign government that replaces it.
Issues: Oil & Energy
‘Slower, Costlier and Dirtier
A Critique of the Bush Energy Plan ‘
https://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/scd/scdinx.asp
For you regular - no. No reason to bother. Your projection of your own hate was just to obvious.
And Fleet, do you have an answer?
“And since the Republicans controlled both Houses and the presidency during the first six years, what “program” did they pass?”
Didn’t think so.
And just out of curiosity, why didn’t George rescind the executive order banning off shore drilling that his father issued?
Is he a tree-hugging environmentalist?
“Is he a tree-hugging environmentalist?”
LOL!!
Probably!
“And Fleet, do you have an answer?”
An answer for what? It didn’t get passed?
Likely because of the statement that still stands and cannot be refuted.
“The dems fought it every step of the way.”
Another plaque for me.
Hank Price posted,
“You have to have energy before you can use it more efficiently.”
If you use EXISTING capacity more efficiently, you do not have to build EXPENSIVE NEW capacity.
It’s cheaper to conserve with efficiency than build expensive new plants.
Hank Price: “Nuclear power generating costs can be brought down with more sensible regulation. It’s still cheaper than wind farms and more reliable.”
25: What about nuclear power?
Page 258 (PDF pg 282)
http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
“Regardless, nuclear power948 has no prospects in market-driven energy systems, for a simple reason: new nuclear plants949 cost too much to build.
In round numbers, electricity from new light-water reactors will cost
twice as much as from new windfarms,
five to ten times as much as distributed gas-fired cogeneration or trigeneration in buildings and factories (net of the credit for their recovered heat),
and three to thirty times as much as end-use efficiency that can save most of the electricity now used.95
Any one of these three abundant and widely available competitors alone could knock nuclear power out of the market, and there are three, with more on the way (ultimately including cheap fuel cells). “
“Likely because of the statement that still stands and cannot be refuted.”
I guess basic math is over your head, Fleet. The Republicans owned both Houses and the presidency - they could have passed damn near any bill they wanted.
What bill did they PROPOSE?
Damn.
For most folks, this is pretty basic.
An answer for what? It didn’t get passed?
Likely because of the statement that still stands and cannot be refuted.
“The dems fought it every step of the way.”
Since the Republics controlled both the Congress and the White House how did the Democrats stop it?
WSC - I figured it out. The Democrats had the Republics so terrified they just couldn’t even introduce anything.
Man, THAT is power!
8)
#
Regular
Posted June 18, 2008 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
Practice what you preach Libs, wean yourself off of oil now.
Or do you need 10, 15, 20 years before you wean yourself from petroleum products?
Hypocrites.
============================================
This is really hilarious. It’s us same “lib hypocrites” who have been pushing for alternate energy sources, such as electric and hydrogen cars, for decades. It’s the cons who have called us chicken littles for doing so, and done everything they can to stop the research.
I would say it’s the cons who are now the hypocrites.
And I still have yet to read how the Conservatives rationalize their love of oil, and it’s cost of American lives via that same oil sponsored terrorism. Now there’s hypocrisy in true red state glory. Yep, go kill em, boys, it’s business as usual.
“The crises in Iran and Afghanistan have dramatized a very important lesson: Our excessive dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to our Nation’s security. The need has never been more urgent. At long last, we must have a clear, comprehensive energy policy for the United States.
As you well know, I have been working with the Congress in a concentrated and persistent way over the past 3 years to meet this need. We have made progress together. But Congress must act promptly now to complete final action on this vital energy legislation. Our Nation will then have a major conservation effort, important initiatives to develop solar power, realistic pricing based on the true value of oil, strong incentives for the production of coal and other fossil fuels in the United States, and our Nation’s most massive peacetime investment in the development of synthetic fuels.”
From President Carter’s 1980 State of the Union Address. Carter’s idea was to increase domestic production, reduce import demand through conservation, technological innovation and creation of alternative fuels and energy. Republicans preferred Reagan’s idea of increased dependence on foreign oil and deregulation of the way oil is priced. How did that result 28 years later?
Reagan demolished research into alternative energy and efficiency. Bush Jr. deregulated oil commodity trading. The end result is the prices we see now and our absolute vulnerability to foreign oil.
Don’t blame a lack of domestic production. The oil companies have permits for drilling in thousands of sites in the U.S. but refuse to do so. It’s estimated by the BLM that 4.8 million barrels of oil can be recovered daily from the sites that have been permitted, but not drilled. That would double the amount of oil produced in this nation.
So there is no need to drill off shore, the sites are already made available to the oil companies. They merely want to create an energy crises so they can fleece Americans further. What incentive is there to drill for more oil when they are already receiving record profits?
Ben:
Maybe Al-Qaida had Dubya so scared, he didn’t want to repeal daddy’s policy on drilling, until the 2008 election year.
It’s nice politics, NeoCons. Some of the very stupid moderates might even buy it. It might salvage the GOP congress. But other than that, it’s only good for your “Chortles” But you keep it up if it floats your boat.
Fleetwood, may I trouble you for some proof on your statistics? Like where you found them other than pulling them out of your ass.
VET - makes sense. After all, alQuada had Bush so scared he tried to appease them by attacking their enemy for them. And now we are threatening another enemy of alQuada.
chortle …
Hank,
One of the reasons the 2001 energy policy didn’t pass was the secrecy the administration used during the process. Also, their failing to include the industry biggies, in particular, those identified as then-Enron President and Chairman Kenneth Lay and lobbyists Haley Barbour and Marc Racicot.
Had the Bush-Cheney White House been forthcoming with congress, in a bipartisan manner, I suspect things might have been different. One thing, after reading the policy, you would have to agree with, is it gave the bulk of the money to be made available to energy and oil companies.
There are some very small companies, with some very interesting ideas concerning energy, who were left completely out of the process. Seems to me these same companies should have been able vie for monies to pay for research. Sadly, that wouldn’t happen under the policy.
Bush and mccain flip flop like a couple of gar pitched on the bank. Fortunately,their antics will soon be history.
“Hmm, the greatest source of milk in the fridge is NOT drinking the milk that is sitting in the fridge.
We can now give the cows a break, Confucious has solved the problem of having to go to the store to get more milk.”
I don’t drink milk. But when I go to the store to get it for my son, I walk. Try it sometime.
“House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries”
You people just can’t help it.
Somebody help me with this one. Would this be:
1) Heil Hitler? or
2) Hail Stalin?
Anyone?
Can you please TRY to answer this one, Fleet, instead of reinforcing your position as the BDP?
“Likely because of the statement that still stands and cannot be refuted.”
I guess basic math is over your head, Fleet. The Republicans owned both Houses and the presidency - they could have passed damn near any bill they wanted.
What bill did they PROPOSE?
Damn.
For most folks, this is pretty basic.
Rasmussen: 67% Support Off-Shore Drilling
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/06/rasmussen_67_support_offshore.html
“Rasmussen: 67% Support Off-Shore Drilling”
So why won’t YOUR president rescind the executive order his father signed?
Oh, yeah, the same reason he won’t get out of Iraq despite the 67% of Americans that want the troops home.
He doesn’t believe in democracy.
“they could have passed damn near any bill they wanted.”
You think? You know better.
“We could stop the war, but we don’t have the numbers” blah blah blah
P.S. This still stands.
“The dems fought it every step of the way.”
“The dems fought it every step of the way.”
and as a result the spineless Republics were too scared to even introduce anything.
“We could stop the war, but we don’t have the numbers” blah blah blah”
I guess the concept of a veto also slips by your minimal IQ, Fleet.
The Democrats DID pass funding bills with withdrawal timelines.
Bush vetoed them.
Would Bush have vetoed an energy bill passed by a Republican Congress?
The fact of the matter is that Bush never vetoed any spending bill until the Democrats took Congress.
Now, let’s try again - what energy bill did the Republicans propose?
“The dems fought it every step of the way.”
Fought what? What bill did the Democrats fight?
Come on, you keep implying it, now give it up.
“The dems fought it every step of the way.”
It’s all ten years away. We won’t get much oil. It won’t lower the price much.
“The dems fought it every step of the way.”
“The dems fought it every step of the way.”
What bill?
OK Fleetwood.
67% support off shore drilling. I am one of them. Funny thing is I don’t remember seeing a post from you about that.
Now, how about telling us where you got this one:
“Americans support drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas now off limits (57%).”
and this one:
“Over the past year, the percentage of Americans blaming the oil companies for skyrocketing gas prices fell from 34% to 20%”
Just do your homework Fleetwood. Just because Tim Russert is dead doesn’t mean you no longer need to do your homework.
From the New York Times, 9/22/03.
“In anticipation of a new push for arctic drilling, Senate Democrats have been making their sentiments known. Last week, they announced that 43 senators had signed letters urging the negotiators to keep drilling out of the final measure, more than enough to block it if they all supported a filibuster.
”If the energy bill contains drilling in ANWR, it’s in for a rough ride,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. In votes on the issue this year and in 2002, drilling opponents prevailed both times with more than 50 votes.”
Offshore drilling bill killed
By Michelle Malkin • June 11, 2008 06:29 PM
GOP Rep. John Peterson’s latest bid to lift domestic offshore drilling restrictions, which I blogged earlier today here, was killed this afternoon by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and the Environment. It was a straight, party line vote.
Dems against:
Chair: Norman D. Dicks (WA)
James P. Moran (VA)
Maurice D. Hinchey (NY)
John W. Olver (MA)
Alan B. Mollohan (WV)
Tom Udall (NM)
Ben Chandler (KY)
Ed Pastor (AZ)
Dave Obey (WI), Ex Officio
Republicans for:
Ranking Member:
Todd Tiahrt (KS)
John E. Peterson (PA)
Jo Ann Emerson (MO)
Virgil H. Goode, Jr. (VA)
Ken Calvert (CA)
Jerry Lewis (CA), Ex Officio
The Republicans on the subcommittee vow to keep pressing the issue:
A 27-year-old federal moratorium has prevented offshore drilling in most coastal waters except parts of the Gulf of Mexico.
Virginia lawmakers have expressed interest in pursuing drilling, particularly for natural gas.
Peterson, who is retiring next year, said offshore drilling could provide enough oil to replace Middle East oil imports for 35 years. He said the plan would also yield an 18-year supply of natural gas.
“There is no valid reason for Congress to continue keeping Americans from the offshore resources they own,” Peterson said.
But Democrats, who control Congress, said offshore drilling would have no immediate effect on the price of gasoline and would do little to lower the world price of oil.
“We are kidding ourselves, as we routinely do in this town, if we think we can drill our way out of this problem,” said Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wis.
…”The American people are going to have a lot to say about this,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the full House Appropriations Committee.
Have your say. The Congressional switchboard number: 202-224-3121.
“drilling opponents prevailed both times with more than 50 votes.”
So Republicans voted against it also.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……………………..
Why is that?
From The Guardian, 5/24/01
“The administration’s newly unveiled energy plan, aimed at encouraging more oil drilling, coal mining and nuclear plants, would also be doubt, as would Mr Bush’s plan to build a controversial anti-ballistic shield against missile attack.”
Why issue more permits for off shore drilling when many have already been issued and aren’t being used?
”The American people are going to have a lot to say about this,”
So why didn’t they pass a bill when the GOP controlled both Houses and the presidency.
Why hasn’t Bush rescinded the executive order banning off shore drilling?
Why did the Bush Brothers conspire to prevent drilling off the Florida Gulf Coast?
Eh?
From the News Hours with Jim Lehrer, 12/21/05
“In last minute votes on Wednesday, the Senate approved a bill to trim spending on social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and student loans but rejected a military spending bill that included a controversial provision to drill for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”
Here are a few other issues that don’t seem fair,” Sen. Kohl: Democratic Party support for environmental groups that hold spotted owls and suckerfish above the economic needs of the American people; Democratic Party resistance to any attempts to allow additional oil drilling in America; and Democrat Party resistance to the expanded use of nuclear power to generate electricity. These are only several of the Democrat-supported policies that don’t seem “fair.” There are many more.
“What bill?”
That would be all of them. But, you knew that.
fleettwood
Posted June 18, 2008 at 6:41 pm | Permalink
From the News Hours with Jim Lehrer, 12/21/05
“In last minute votes on Wednesday, the Senate approved a bill to trim spending on social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and student loans but rejected a military spending bill that included a controversial provision to drill for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”
And what party controlled the Senate in 2005?
“but rejected a military spending bill that included a controversial provision to drill for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.””
You guys know how this works. You people deny allowing us to drill, then try to turn it around. Like you are doing now. Be honest.
Tim Russert died!?
The problem is business, as in energy futures companies like ICE. But you conservatives don’t like putting road blocks on business. ICE has its main office in this country, it’s data center in this country, and a small office in Britain. Guess what? They claim to be a British business! And our government believes them, hence, they really don’t have to comply with our trading laws.
Ice controls as much as 49% of the energy market. Not too difficult to drive up the price when you damn near have the market cornered. It is speculated this arrangement has been responsible for from 25 to 40% of the increase in gas prices.
That’s NOT supply and demand, it’s common thievery. But that seems to be the conservative way . . . remember Enron? Where’s the control now? Finally congress is taking a look at it. I only hope it goes way further than a cursory look.
bth
Posted June 18, 2008 at 6:46 pm | Permalink
fleettwood
Posted June 18, 2008 at 6:41 pm | Permalink
And what party controlled the Senate in 2005?
——————————————
Gas was $1.66 cheaper per gallon then when the Republicans ran things. Now that duh Dems haven’t it, $1.66 more than it was in 2005.
duh!
according to McCain, 20 billion barrels of oil are at stake. Our Country uses 20.7 million barrels per day.
http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/oil_consumption.html
That would mean 965 days of oil, 2.7 years. So how is it the answer to our energy supply? How much “less” are you all talking about. Care to quantify this enigmatic “Less” payment that will come from drilling now and drilling here?
You don’t get it do you LLVET? If one becomes a viable supplier, they can affect the price per barrell of oil and in the end, the price of gasoline.
Besides, there is more than the 20 billion you quoted. That’s just from one region of the coast.
Right now, China is assisting Cuba in offshore drilling.
I suppose duh Libs want to give all the offshore drilling oil and proceeds to China and Cuba?
Yeah, that’s using your head.
” Bush could rescind that order today if he chose to.”
It is not clear to me, that even if Bush were to lift the moratorium on drilling, which prior presidents have also enforced (including Clinton executive order), that oil companies could begin drilling.
Congress has enacted complicated legislation over the years controlling offshore resources. Can anyone tell me if Bush can give a green light without being UNconstitutional? Congress acted…?
Excerpt:
“The primary federal law governing development of oil and gas in federal waters
is the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). As stated above, the OCSLA
codifies federal control of the OCS, declaring that the submerged lands seaward of
the state’s offshore boundaries appertain to the U.S. federal government. More than
simply declaring federal control, the OCSLA has as its primary purpose “expeditious
and orderly development [of OCS resources], subject to environmental safeguards,
in a manner which is consistent with the maintenance of competition and other
national needs….” To effectuate this purpose, the OCSLA extends application of
federal laws to certain structures and devices located on the OCS,19 provides that the
law of adjacent states will apply to the OCS when it does not conflict with federal
law,20 and, significantly, provides a comprehensive leasing process for certain OCS
mineral resources and a system for collecting and distributing royalties from the sale
of these federal mineral resources. The OCSLA thus provides comprehensive
regulation of the development of OCS oil and gas resources.
Moratoria
Although in general the OCSLA requires the federal government to prepare,
revise and maintain an oil and gas leasing program, many offshore areas are
withdrawn from disposition under the OCSLA. There are currently two broad
categories of OCS moratoria, those imposed by the President under authority granted
by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and those imposed directly by Congress,
CRS
This legislation is discussed infra. which have most often taken the form of limitations on the use of appropriated
funds. Congressionally imposed moratoria have been imposed since the early
1980s and have been approved annually thereafter. In 1990, President Bush issued
a directive essentially paralleling the congressionally mandated moratoria, prohibiting
most oil and gas development outside of the offshore areas associated with (though
not belonging to) Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama.24 This presidential withdrawal
was to be effective until after the year 2000. In 1998, President Clinton issued a new
executive branch moratorium, lasting until June 30, 2012. The Clinton order refers
to the 1997 congressional moratorium26 and adopts the substance of that enactment
expressly, which itself included by reference those areas covered by the 1990
presidential withdrawal.”
Just wondering if it is fair to blame Bush on this one. Even if he lifted the executive order, I don’t think he can disobey the legislative law.
If China is coming waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over by Cuba for oil, do you suppose they are doing so - because they believe IT WON’T MAKE A DIFFERNCE?
“That would mean 965 days of oil, 2.7 years. So how is it the answer to our energy supply?”
If this was true why would Big Oil bother?
Answer: It’s not true.
“Right now, China is assisting Cuba in offshore drilling.”
Paranoid dreams of deluded Republicans. Funny that you cons are still peddling that lie. Even Cheney admitted he was wrong but Republicans figure if you tell a lie enough times….
Because when the oil companies drill on Federal lands, the screw the taxpayer by impropper royalty accounting, and make big bucks.
“Because when the oil companies drill on Federal lands, the screw the taxpayer by impropper royalty accounting, and make big bucks.”
I’ll be right back.
I’m going to Dillons for some more tin foil.
Well Fleetwood, do you deny what McCain said about 20 billion barrels, or do you deny 200.7 million per day? Which is not true?
Fleet: So McCain didn’t say 20 billion, or 200 million is wrong? Which one?
Duh Libs think the answer is not in drilling. Or do you disagree with Bill O’Reilly (I may have misspelled his name, who cares) when he even says. “we can’t drill our way out of this”
Stop foaming at the mouth regular. I am not going to let those nasty little Chinese take our precious little oil.
I wonder why Brazil doesn’t worry about this issue?
Here’s the Republican idiots claiming China’s drillin off shore from Cuba. Not that it’ll matter to the idiot followers, most of which still think Saddam was involved in 9/11!
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/06/8678_gop_claims_chin.html
You already look like tin man, why do you need more foil?
AMWay. Homework please. China coming way(with 14 A’s) over to Cuba. So who is the expert on Chinese Oil now?
Bill O’Reilly is an idiot and so is McCain and so are the you peoples who won’t let us drill for oil in our own country.
You are the same people who think high gas prices are good. Why should we trust you to lower the prices? It would be against your interests.
“You already look like tin man, why do you need more foil?”
Thank you. What did the Tin man need?
LLTVET
It’s a fair question. (and you counted the A’s?)
That’s why they call me the BDP.
Yeah Phantom?
Who is the idiot now?
I got your tin foil hat, rite c’here.
China, Cuba reported in Gulf oil partnership
U.S. firms stand by, prohibited from bidding on contracts; lawmakers propose opening up U.S. coast for drilling.
May 9, 2006: 10:12 AM EDT
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Plans for foreign oil companies, some from India and China, to drill off the cost of Cuba are prompting calls from lawmakers to ease environmental restrictions that prohibit coastal drilling in most of the U.S., according to a report Tuesday.
At a time of rising soaring gasoline prices caused partly by a lack of supply, legislators are fuming that Cuba is opening up its continental shelf for oil and gas exploration while most of the U.S. continental shelf outside the Gulf of Mexico, which extends 200 miles from shore, has been off limits for drilling since the early 1980s, the New York Times reported.
The United States Geological Survey estimates the Cuban deal involves 4.6 billion barrels of oil and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the Times.
China has had contracts for offshore drilling for four years, China has been shipping drilling equipment to Cuba since 2006 and china has drilled off the coast of Cuba yet somehow the Democrats and an “energy expert” from Miami says Cheney is lying and using “scare tactics”.
http://186kpersecond.com/blog/2008/06/13/cheney-china-cuba-oil/
Sinopec signs up for oil production in Cuba
01-02-05 China’s oil and gas giant Sinopec has signed an agreement with Cuba’s state-run Cubapetroleo (Cupet) to jointly produce oil on the Caribbean island, the Cuban government announced.
“A joint production contract was signed on Sunday for one of the potential petroleum producing zones of the country,” said a brief statement. A source in Cupet said the production area was on the coast of western Pinar del Rio province.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnl50800.htm
Reuters
Chinese oil drilling equipment has begun arriving in Cuba as state-run Cubapetroleo (Cupet) and its foreign partners prepare to significantly increase drilling along the northwest coast, industry sources said this week.
“Four service units and a small rig have arrived and we are waiting for more,” said a Cuban oil service manager, asking his name not be used.
There are currently five rigs operating along the northwest heavy oil belt, an 80-mile (128-km) stretch of coast in Havana and Matanzas provinces from whence come all of Cuba’s 70,000 to 80,000 barrels per day of heavy crude at 8 API to 18 API and with a high sulfur content.
http://havanajournal.com/business/entry/cuba_oil_production_to_increase_with_more_chinese_equipment_arriving/
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/energywatch/oilandgas/features/article_1190927.php/Sino-Cuba_energy_relations_raise_concern_in_Washington
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/energywatch/oilandgas/features/article_1190927.php/Sino-Cuba_energy_relations_raise_concern_in_Washington
For China, the budding energy partnership with Cuba comes at a critical time. Energy demand continues to increase at an almost unsustainable rate, with oil demand rising an unprecedented 15 percent in June from a year earlier, the third straight month of double-digit expansion. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts China’s appetite for oil will skyrocket to 14.2 million bpd by 2025.
So, Phantom boy, ya gonna believe your lying eyes or you gonna spew out more Lib vomitus?
no amway, my mistake it was 20A’s. But I didn’t think it important to be too technical.
So BILLO is an idiot. HOLY COW, WE AGREE ON SOMETHING. I gotta let this set in a while.
I think high gas prices are Good? NO.
I am just not going to foam at the mouth about it. I plan for things like this. Like not buying a hummer. I plan for changes in tax codes (I will admit I have an unfair advantage because that is how I make my living) But anyone making loads of money who is too stupid to use the tax code to their advantage deserves to be taxed too high. Thank you Darwin.
My wife is getting impatient. I just want to bask in the glory of a neocon calling BILLO an idiot. You just made my night Fleet.
To be continued Regular? AMway? Fleet?
Regular,
I have to be fair. All by himself, the Phantom was responsible for a drop in LibIQ points.
Your five following posts were a tremendous lift to the ConsIQ points.
Unfortunately, some of the gain was lost with your
vomit post.
Come on team!
American_Way,
I don’t care, I’m a tough sum’btich. I call it like I see it.
Good job Regular, post a bunch of stuff talking about China’s plans to drill for oil in Cuba when you are trying to make a point that they are going to drill offshore. Absolutely brilliant. Like McCain you are a maverick when it comes to ignoring the facts.
Florida Republican Senator Mel Martinez has already mentioned that your claim is an urban myth but what would he know, he’s just a senator from Florida. Cheney already mentioned that he was wrong on the issue and apologized.
Oh well, as I said, keep on telling the same lie over and over again and you’ll get people to believe it. Well, the guillible, uninformed people.
“My wife is getting impatient. I just want to bask in the glory of a neocon calling BILLO an idiot.”
For one, I’m not sure what a neocon is.
I do have a feeling it is an insult. And O’Reilly is still an idiot.
You may not think high gas prices are good, but your brethren do.
“I’m a tough sum’btich.”
Ya’ got half that right.
Now work on the tough part.
China is putting test rigs up to explore for oil off the coast of Cuba. (oil companies to explore for oil) The are using technology from Spain as Cuba does not have the capability to drill on gulf bound platforms. However, Cuba does provide the leases and the manpower.
A map of the area from the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/05/09/washington/20060509_DRILL_GRAPHIC.html
Funny that you have to reference articles from 2006. You know why that is? Because China hasn’t drilled off the Cuban shore.
I guess if you updated your info then you might just not have any paranoid conspiracies to rant about.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/12/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4177282.shtml
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwl7MBs14OAtZbu1YJe8l-X7O8vAD91906B80
Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted June 18, 2008 at 7:16 pm
“You don’t get it do you LLVET? If one becomes a viable supplier, they can affect the price per barrell of oil and in the end, the price of gasoline.”
———–
The U.S. does NOT have large enough oil reserves to have much affect on world oil prices.
The U.S. EIA admits that OPEC controls the price of world oil.
The U.S. has already depleted our cheaper, accessible reserves.
New drilling sites will only help replace other declining domestic sources — it’s a futile attempt to maintain status quo.
Why on earth are you libs so defensive and against drilling our own darn oil?!?
You whine and cry that it won’t make any difference.
So shut up and let them drill will ya? Every drop is needed by a thirsty and addicted America.
It will get used beyond a shadow of doubt.
You cry if we don’t you cry if we do. Is it any wonder we haven’t built any nuke plants in decades, or oil refineries (which increase local supplies)?
I can’t figure you out.
(PS: No points plus/minus for ConIQ, neutral post)
“Why on earth are you libs so defensive and against drilling our own darn oil?!?”
Ask Conservative Republican George the Smarter why he banned off shore drilling.
Ask Conservative Republican George the Dumb why he conspired with Jeb to ban drilling off the Florida Gulf Coast.
Ask the oil companies why they are not drilling in areas where they already have permits.
Ask them, not the “libs.”
Funny, I don’t see any of those folks whining and crying on the weblog.
“Funny, I don’t see any of those folks whining and crying on the weblog.”
You “cons” just can’t answer the questions, now can you?
I guess we must take 50 points off your collective IQ - inability to answer a direct question.
Sorry I responded to you Clark. I didn’t realize it was your post I posted back to.
Well, the offer is still open, AmWay - answer the reasonable questions.
Regular, it seems that like the typical republican, and boy wonder bush, you’re relying on outdated information!
Can’t possibly make it any clearer than this, think I’m wasting time on one that is intentionally obtuse.http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/story/569216.html
Waffles anyone?
This is getting rich! If, as it now seems, there may be oil in Cuba, are we going to see the republicans lobbying to reverse the embargo that they’ve so vociferously defended for 50 years?
Follow the money!
Regular repeats McCain’s deliberate lies:
“GOP claim about Chinese oil drilling off Cuba is untrue
WASHINGTON — As Congress has debated energy policy over the past several days, an unusual argument keeps surfacing in support of drilling off the U.S. coastline and in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Why, ask some Republicans, should the United States be thwarted from drilling in its own territory when just 50 miles off the Florida coastline the Chinese government is drilling for oil under Cuban leases?
Yet no one can prove that the Chinese are drilling anywhere off Cuba’s shoreline. The China-Cuba connection is “akin to urban legend,” said Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida who opposes drilling off the coast of his state but who backs exploration in ANWR.
“China is not drilling in Cuba’s Gulf of Mexico waters, period,” said Jorge Pinon, an energy fellow with the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami and an expert in oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. Martinez cited Pinon’s research when he took to the Senate floor Wednesday to set the record straight.
Even so, the Chinese-drilling-in-Cuba legend has gained momentum and has been swept up in Republican arguments to open up more U.S. territory to domestic production.
Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech Wednesday to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, picked up the refrain. Cheney quoted a column by George Will, who wrote last week that “drilling is under way 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are.”
In his speech, Cheney described the Chinese as being “in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to higher prices means more supply.”
“But Congress says no to drilling in ANWR, no to drilling on the East Coast, no to drilling on the West Coast,” Cheney added.
The office of House Minority Leader John Boehner defended the GOP drilling claims. “A 2006 New York Times story highlights lease agreements negotiated between Cuba and China and the fact that China was planning to drill in the Florida Strait off the coast of Cuba,” said spokesman Michael Steel.
The China-Cuba connection also appeared in an editorial Monday in Investor’s Business Daily, which wrote that “the U.S. Congress has voted consistently to keep 85 percent of America’s offshore oil and gas off-limits, while China and Cuba drill 60 miles from Key West, Fla.”
And on Tuesday, Rep. George Radanovich, R-Calif., wrote in the Modesto Bee that “China, thanks to a lease issued by Cuba, is drilling for oil just 50 miles off Florida’s coast.”
A spokesman for Radanovich said Wednesday that the congressman had read about a Cuban lease to Chinese interests in the 2006 Times article.
China’s Sinopec oil company does have an agreement with the Cuban government, but it’s to develop onshore resources west of Havana, Pinon said. The Chinese have done some seismic testing, he said, but no drilling, and nothing offshore.
Western diplomats in Havana tell McClatchy that to the best of their knowledge, there is no Chinese drilling in or around Cuba.
“I’ve never heard anything about this,” said one diplomat from a country in the hemisphere.
The Western diplomats, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media about energy issues, said they believed there is no new drilling occurring off the coast of Cuba, just exploration.”
LIES - REPUBLIC LIES - PARROTED BY REGULAR!
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40776.html
A study in 2001 showed that making U.S. light vehicles only 0.4 mpg more efficient would save 3.2 BILLION barrels of oil over a 30 year period.
That could be done by just keeping tires properly inflated, OR driving less aggressively.
Modern technology could increase light vehicle mpg much more.
And increase other vehicle mpg, reduce heating oil use, etc…
Higher energy efficiency is our best solution… NOT more drilling.
Ben,
The multi nic’d, “Kansas values” ‘Regular’ has to post lies periodically — to maintain his zero credibility rating.
It’s part of his requirement to accurately represent his proud, long-term Kansas family heritage.
An observation … a question … an the answer:
After Bush’s speech calling for increased drilling, oil prices went UP - not down.
WHY?
Speculators know that (a) the amount of oil to be found won’t make a dent in the supply situation and (b) Bush made is clear that we will do nothing to reduce demand.
Ben,
I basically agree with your 10:30 pm post — more U.S. drilling will NOT drop world oil prices. Bush’s speech re more drilling was a joke.
But I’d guess that todays price spikes were also due to problems in Niger, and low supplies.
A great graph of world oil consumption vs crude oil price is on page 15 (PDF pg 39) at
http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
Well, the offer is still open, (any Republican) - answer the reasonable questions.
I guess the Con/Republicans are chickenshits tonight.
As usual.
WS
1. Pressure from enviromentalists.
2. Pressure from environmentalists and people afraid of their beaches getting soiled.
3. They are. Check out North Dakota.
Heckler……….
1. Since when do Republicans bow to “pressure” from environmentalists?
2. Since it was the Bush Brothers that denied drilling off the Florida Gulf Coast, there isn’t much room to criticize Democrats and environmentalists.
3. North Dakota? What about the other thousands of acres that have drilling permits, but no drilling is being done?
By the way, Republican hero Arnold Schwarzenegger says that he will fight drilling off the California Coast.
“2. Since it was the Bush Brothers that denied drilling off the Florida Gulf Coast, there isn’t much room to criticize Democrats and environmentalists.”
Wrong. It was banned by congress in 1981.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13573049/
From your own kind.