Obama unveils offshore drilling plans

[BDKJMU]

You're comparing Yosemite and the Grand Canyon to 2,000 acres of barren, frozen, wasteland.

Where are you getting 2,000 acres from? The proposed drilling area (area 1002) is over 150,000 acres, or 75 times as large as you are claiming. Area 1002 is the habitat for polar bears, lemmings, five species of birds, and 260 Inupiat natives in the village of Kaktovik.

What's the pressing need to drill there and disrupt that? Reducing consumption is the smarter alternative to lining XOM's pockets for oil we won't see for a long, long time, and in a quantity that won't make much difference.

The quicker we can get off oil, the better. Why perpetuate the inevitable and keep financing big oil and Saudi royalty?

The bill that the dems block in the 2000s limited the drilling to 2,000 acres in that 1.5 million of area 102 would contain the drilling.

The same old arguement about it will take a decade before the oil is flowing was used when Clinton vetoed it in the 90s, and when the dems in the Senate blocked it in the early 00s.

A million barrels a day would make a difference. The est 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR could replace the about a million barrels a day we get from Saudi for 30 years:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr ... mport.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would make rather finance American oil companies, what you call "Big Oil", and provide thousands of good paying jobs to Americans, than finance Saudi Royalty.

*Edit Looking it up, I was incorrect to say it was fillibustered. It passed the House 10x between 01' and 05', but it only passed the Senate once on a different bill. Usually in the Senate it was all but a couple of dems voting against and all but about 5 Republican Rhinos voting for it.

[93henfan]

Lol, I missed some zeroes. Yeah, Area 1002 is 1.5M acres, not 150K acres.

I still disagree with more drilling in national wildlife refuges. They were set aside for a reason, and that reason is not for big oil to come in and rape the land, even if it's "only" 2,000 acres. If they are as proficient in drilling as all you "experts" claim, and there are all these new pockets being found worldwide on a regular basis, doesn't that lessen the need for Exxon to turn a quick buck up there? How many of these high-paying jobs are going to be yielded on 2,000 acres anyway?

Again, we could easily reduce our consumption to account for keeping ANWR undisturbed, as it was intended.

[BDKJMU]

Lol, I missed some zeroes. Yeah, Area 1002 is 1.5M acres, not 150K acres.

I still disagree with more drilling in national wildlife refuges. They were set aside for a reason, and that reason is not for big oil to come in and rape the land, even if it's "only" 2,000 acres. If they are as proficient in drilling as all you "experts" claim, and there are all these new pockets being found worldwide on a regular basis, doesn't that lessen the need for Exxon to turn a quick buck up there? How many of these high-paying jobs are going to be yielded on 2,000 acres anyway?

Again, we could easily reduce our consumption to account for keeping ANWR undisturbed, as it was intended.

So all that "Big" Oil does is rape the land..

There never was a proposal to drill in any of the 8 million acres of ANWR designated as Wilderness Area. Again, there is the pristine part of ANWR that all the enviros like to trot out, and then there is the barren frozen tundra part. Again, take a look at some of the winter photos from the snopes article. Barren frozen tundra.

[93henfan]

I haven't seen the Snopes article you speak of, but I believe you. It doesn't make a difference. It's part of a wildlife refuge. You can't drill there. It came up for a vote and failed.

Back to the original topic, aren't you thrilled that Exxon is now allowed to poke holes all over the ocean floor up and down the east coast and the Gulf? That's a score for the Texas boys!

[Appaholic]

millions, billions...what's the difference?

Regarding ANWAR, that's a matter of opinion & values. Some (myself included) hold wilderness sacred & it's value isn't measured in how many people visit it annually, but moreover, how few people get a chance to disturb the wilderness. The small amount of land currently designated wilderness should remain as such IMO. There's always a reason not to protect any land where natural resources could be harvested (The Bureau of Reclamation wanted to place dams on either end of Grand Canyon & flood the bottom in the 60's). With the crowded conditions within Washington DC, I imagine you could also make a case for creating jobs within the Construction industry building some high-value homes overlooking the Potomac on what is currently Arlington National Cemetary. The land was designated & protected as Wilderness for a reason. Once you rationalize removing it's protection, it gets easier to remove the protections on future Protected Areas once something of value is located within their borders.

The proposed drilling area ISN'T within the designated wilderness area. ANWR is about 19 million acres. 8 million is designated Wilderness area. The area designated for exploration is a separate area in ANWR, Area 1002, about 1.5 million acres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Nat ... ife_Refuge" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The area of the proposed drilling is about 2,000 acres. 2,000 acres out of 19 million, in a section of ANWR that is a barren wasteland. Not the type of "Wilderness" you're thinking of:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/anwr.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OK. It's in the Wildlife Refuge Area, not Wilderness....still a protected area, correct? I support drilling on national lands as demonstrated in an earlier post. National forest? Bureau of Reclamation land? yes. Protected Wilderness or Wildlife Refuge? No. Before I'd be willing to allow drilling in those protected lands, I'd want laws requiring a 50% reduction in plastic packaging, a mandated increase in MPG & instant license forfieture for under-inflated tires. Ridiculous? Yes, but so is revoking protected land status or blowing off the top of a mountain so we can drive a Hummer & leave the porch light on all night to feel safe.

[mainejeff]

[bobbythekidd]

[native]

Lol, I missed some zeroes. Yeah, Area 1002 is 1.5M acres, not 150K acres.

I still disagree with more drilling in national wildlife refuges. They were set aside for a reason, and that reason is not for big oil to come in and rape the land, even if it's "only" 2,000 acres. If they are as proficient in drilling as all you "experts" claim, and there are all these new pockets being found worldwide on a regular basis, doesn't that lessen the need for Exxon to turn a quick buck up there? How many of these high-paying jobs are going to be yielded on 2,000 acres anyway?

Again, we could easily reduce our consumption to account for keeping ANWR undisturbed, as it was intended.

Do you know where to find the best fishing in the Gulf of Mexico?

[houndawg]

Thats what "they" do.

You can drill til the cows come home, Alice, but gas prices at the pump will continue to rise.

[93henfan]

Lol, I missed some zeroes. Yeah, Area 1002 is 1.5M acres, not 150K acres.

I still disagree with more drilling in national wildlife refuges. They were set aside for a reason, and that reason is not for big oil to come in and rape the land, even if it's "only" 2,000 acres. If they are as proficient in drilling as all you "experts" claim, and there are all these new pockets being found worldwide on a regular basis, doesn't that lessen the need for Exxon to turn a quick buck up there? How many of these high-paying jobs are going to be yielded on 2,000 acres anyway?

Again, we could easily reduce our consumption to account for keeping ANWR undisturbed, as it was intended.

Do you know where to find the best fishing in the Gulf of Mexico?

I know where you're going. It's the same principle as Redbird Reef, the artificial reef built from NYC's old subway cars (among other things) off of Delaware's coast:

http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/News/Page ... dReef.aspx

http://www.fw.delaware.gov/Fisheries/Pa ... kings.aspx

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/us/08reef.html

[native]

Do you know where to find the best fishing in the Gulf of Mexico?

I know where you're going. It's the same principle as Redbird Reef, the artificial reef built from NYC's old subway cars (among other things) off of Delaware's coast:

http://www.fw.delaware.gov/Fisheries/Pa ... kings.aspx

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/us/08reef.html

You're right, henfan. The best fishing in the Gulf is around the oil rigs, which work as reefs upon which flora and fauna proliferate, kinda like the increase in Caribou population near the warmth and protection offered by the oil pipelines.

I am all for protection of something truly delicate or unique, like the Great Barrier Reef, but most of the left wing hysteria about drilling is just hyper-political crap.

[BDKJMU]

I haven't seen the Snopes article you speak of, but I believe you. It doesn't make a difference. It's part of a wildlife refuge. You can't drill there. It came up for a vote and failed.

Back to the original topic, aren't you thrilled that Exxon is now allowed to poke holes all over the ocean floor up and down the east coast and the Gulf? That's a score for the Texas boys!

I posted it on the previous page, page 3 of this thread, about 2/3 of the way down:

The proposed drilling area ISN'T within the designated wilderness area. ANWR is about 19 million acres. 8 million is designated Wilderness area. The area designated for exploration is a separate area in ANWR, Area 1002, about 1.5 million acres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Nat ... ife_Refuge" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The area of the proposed drilling is about 2,000 acres. 2,000 acres out of 19 million, in a section of ANWR that is a barren wasteland. Not the type of "Wilderness" you're thinking of:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/anwr.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

Thats what "they" do.

You can drill til the cows come home, Alice, but gas prices at the pump will continue to rise.

They'll rise alot faster if everywhere worldwide they stopped new exploration and drilling.

[oldsloguy]

Why do I have this uneasy feeling that this is a ploy to make Mr. Obama look more main stream. I can’t help but think that they will make big political fanfare out of this and then quietly kill it by the death of a thousand cuts over the next several years. That is the same tactic they used on nuclear power, review, regulate and run the expense to prohibitive levels. I may be wrong, but I have this feeling that Mr. Obama and the Donks are going to look like the second coming of Barry Goldwater between now and the Nov. elections.

[BDKJMU]

I haven't seen the Snopes article you speak of, but I believe you. It doesn't make a difference. It's part of a wildlife refuge. You can't drill there. It came up for a vote and failed.

Back to the original topic, aren't you thrilled that Exxon is now allowed to poke holes all over the ocean floor up and down the east coast and the Gulf? That's a score for the Texas boys!

Well, since you appear to be so anti oil you'll be happy to know that:

"...While Obama gave a nod to environmental groups, by cancelling proposed leasing in Alaska’s Bristol Bay......

....The proposed leasing in Alaska’s Bristol Bay will be cancelled in effort to, as an administration official put it, demonstrate Obama’s “commitment to protecting the most sensitive areas” of the Outer Continental Shelf. Four pending lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in North Alaska will also be cancelled....."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35223.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All this moratorium does is lowers the 200 mile barrier to 50 miles, and those platforms won't be visible to the naked eye, not even with binos

"....Drafts of the Senate climate bill include proposals to give greater federal revenues to states that opt for drilling off their coasts, according to lobbyists who’ve been briefed on the legislation....."

So those "holes" as you say off the Atlantic Coast if they do happen will mean:
-more $ for the fed and states in terms of lease revenue, which is good for the taxpayers, esp cash strapped states:
-more tax revenue for the fed and states- again good for the taxpayers
-more jobs, good for the economy
-more domestically produced oil, which means less imported, and prices not rising as high as they otherwise would

[BDKJMU]

Why do I have this uneasy feeling that this is a ploy to make Mr. Obama look more main stream. I can’t help but think that they will make big political fanfare out of this and then quietly kill it by the death of a thousand cuts over the next several years. That is the same tactic they used on nuclear power, review, regulate and run the expense to prohibitive levels. I may be wrong, but I have this feeling that Mr. Obama and the Donks are going to look like the second coming of Barry Goldwater between now and the Nov. elections.

He's triangulatin' and using this to try to get cap and tax passed:
"....In the Senate, moderate Democrats and a handful of Republicans have named offshore drilling as their price of admission for a comprehensive climate bill.

"I will not support any bill that doesn't have off-shore drilling in a meaningful way," said Graham.

“It’s just impossible to pass any piece of legislation without it,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). “In order to get any bill through here, there’s going to be expanded drilling opportunities both on-shore and off.”

“It will be a fight — it always is,” she said, “but I think we'll win.”

Yet even if Obama’s wins a short-term bump on the issue, perils remain. The decision may gain him some GOP backing – at the expense of anti-drilling Democrats.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) has vowed to filibuster any legislation that removes the ban on drilling off the coast of Florida. And last week, 10 coastal state Democrats wrote the three senators working on the climate bill, warning that they could not support a bill that includes offshore drilling...."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35265.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

You can drill til the cows come home, Alice, but gas prices at the pump will continue to rise.

They'll rise alot faster if everywhere worldwide they stopped new exploration and drilling.

Doubtful. The bottleneck is at the refining stage.

[Gil Dobie]

[houndawg]

I'll bet W flies into a rage when he sees that pic. Better hope there aren't any pics of them holding hands and kissing, you know how jealous those cheerleaders can get.

[mainejeff]

Thats what "they" do.

You can drill til the cows come home, Alice, but gas prices at the pump will continue to rise.

CONKS don't care anymore.......they will fight anything that Dems/Progressives/Libs support. CONKS have become bitter, vengeful, and unreasonable.

[mainejeff]

I'll bet W flies into a rage when he sees that pic. Better hope there aren't any pics of them holding hands and kissing, you know how jealous those cheerleaders can get.

[BlueHen86]

I'll bet W flies into a rage when he sees that pic. Better hope there aren't any pics of them holding hands and kissing, you know how jealous those cheerleaders can get.

[BDKJMU]

They'll rise alot faster if everywhere worldwide they stopped new exploration and drilling.

Doubtful. The bottleneck is at the refining stage.

As I pointed out 2 pages ago, thanks to the dems who have blocked previous bills that would have added new refineries, the enviros and NIMBYs that have sued to have them stopped, and the large # of boutique fuels that causes problems. New refineries and the streamlining of boutique fuels need to be part of any energy bill.

[BDKJMU]

You can drill til the cows come home, Alice, but gas prices at the pump will continue to rise.

CONKS don't care anymore.......they will fight anything that Dems/Progressives/Libs support. CONKS have become bitter, vengeful, and unreasonable.

[houndawg]

Doubtful. The bottleneck is at the refining stage.

As I pointed out 2 pages ago, thanks to the dems who have blocked previous bills that would have added new refineries, the enviros and NIMBYs that have sued to have them stopped, and the large # of boutique fuels that causes problems. New refineries and the streamlining of boutique fuels need to be part of any energy bill.

The enviros have nothing, they're a convenient scapegoat.

It's supply and demand, bud, and the oil companies don't see any reason to increase supply, reduce demand, and lower prices, things are fine for them just the way they are now.