McCain to Call for End to Ban on Offshore Drilling
June 17th, 2008 at 11:37am Mark Noonan
Given that the people he’ll anger (rich liberals) won’t vote for him while is looks to be something which can help everyone else, this might be a winning idea for November:
ARLINGTON, VA. – As John McCain rolls out his energy policy this week, he called for a lifting of the federal moratorium preventing states from exploring for oil off of their coasts. “They have to be lifted so that states can make those decisions,” McCain said. “I’m not dictating to the states that they drill or they engage in oil exploration, I am saying that the moratoria should be lifted so that they have the opportunity to do so. By the way, I would also like to see perhaps additional incentives…in the form of tangible financial rewards if the states decide to lift those moratoria.”
Searching for offshore oil and gas deposits was banned in 1981 by the Outer Continental Shelf moratorium, which prevents the leasing of coastal waters for fossil fuel development. Roughly 85 percent of U.S. coastal areas are currently protected by the moratorium. McCain’s Democratic rival, Barack Obama, voted against a Senate measure last March that would have lifted the ban, and has spoken out against offshore drilling, calling it a “short-term solution.”
McCain admitted offshore drilling would only be helpful in the short term, but would provide a good start in helping the U.S. develop other sources of energy. “We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gases through the development of alternate energy sources,” McCain said. “Exploration is a step toward the longer term goal.”
It is time we started to shove aside the liberals who’s invariable solution is to make things worse - how much money have we sent overseas, often to hostile people and entities, because a bunch of liberals were determined not to have a shadowy oil platform 10 miles off Malibu? Oil must eventually cease to be our primary source of energy, but while we’re still an oil-powered civilization, we’re worse than fools to deny ourselves what Nature has provided.
In the fall, the race might turn on the “get things done” program of McCain vs Obama’s “perhaps we’ll do something later” platitutdes.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Economy, Republicans
28 Comments
1. OpChaosUK | June 17th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Hey Earbama, a short-term solution, as you call it, is better than no solution, as you possess.
It is unbelievable that this big-eared nitwit even has a chance in November. Must be a lot of white guilt, as Shelby Steele calls it, floating around out there.
Liberalism is a mental disorder; all libs are cowards…
2. Zach | June 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Lets see. He opposes off-shore drilling and claims it to be a short-term fix….But he SUPPORTS temporarily halting the filling of the SPR!
WTF?
You can find it on his damn website that he specifically supports temporary…TEMPORARY! halting of SPR filling until “fuel prices become reasonable again” (whatever “reasonable” means!?)…That by definition is a short-term fix!
He’s kidding right?
Who the hell decides what time frame falls into “short-term and long-term” anyway? 5 days, 5 months, 5 years? Obama doesnt specify…again.
3. Magnum Serpentine | June 17th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Why not force the Oil Companies to drill on the land they ALREADY OWN!!! what will happen is the big wig oil companies will say thank you for the land then lock it up and not drill. They know if they drill on land they own that their profits will go down.
While we are at it, lets force the big wig oil companies to build more refineries. Big wig oil refuses to do so because it will eat into their profits.
4. Zach | June 17th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Completely agree with you MS.
5. hermie | June 17th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Force them to build more refineries?
Ahem…The environmental movement has been successful for decades in placing roadblocks to building more refineries, and local pols have successfully fought tooth and nail even expansion of existing facilities.
Obama’s political patron, Ritchie Daley, has fought the expansion of an Indiana refinery with his political clout and city attorneys, backed up by ‘citizens groups’ .
If Ritchie Daley says ‘No’, do you think that Obama will dare override him?
6. Some Assembly Required | June 17th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Mark and Matt, Rush and Bill remind be of ‘Lewis Prothero’ In ‘V for Vendetta’. It truly is amazing how a movie can nail your mannerisms and propaganda so incredibly well.
But all in all I think I’ll leave it to V who sums it up best….
“There is no court in this country for men like Prothero.”
7. hermie | June 17th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Also, building a refinery isn’t like placing a Starbucks on an empty corner.
8. HeyNow | June 17th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Nice, add another flip flop to the long list for McCain. This guy is all over the place.
“He was against drilling before he was for it.
“During his last run for the presidency, in 1999, McCain supported the drilling moratorium, and he scolded the “special interests in Washington” that sought offshore drilling leases. Yesterday, he announced that those very same “moratoria should be lifted” and proposed incentives for the states “in the form of tangible financial rewards, if the states decide to lift those moratoriums.””
Senator John McCain, who criticized the Clinton Administration for its decision to extend 36 offshore oil leaves along the central California coast over the objections of that state’s Governor and Attorney General, has promised to “never lose sight of the fundamental principle that federal land management decisions affecting local communities must be made in cooperation with the Americans who call those communities home.”
“McCain said. ‘The idea that Washington knows best, and that local residents cannot be trusted to do what’s right in their own back yard is the epitome of federal arrogance. … The leases for off-shore drilling should never have been granted without allowing Californians a legitimate voice in the decision-making process.’”
“Improving energy efficiency to cut down on the emissions that scientists fear are contributing to global climate changes, is not only good for the environment, but cuts costs for industry and consumers. ” (as cited on his campaign web page)
9. Danish Artist | June 17th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
MS you keep making this claim…..
“Why not force the Oil Companies to drill on the land they ALREADY OWN!!!….They know if they drill on land they own that their profits will go down.”
But have yet to provide any proof that this is the case, and you have been asked on numerous occassions. Their profits do not rise by raising oil prices.
Have you ever taken an economics class? Basic economics show that as the price goes up, demand will drop (on the demand curve). Granted on the supply curve it is the opposite. The supply goes down the price goes up. HOWEVER, there is the optimum price where demand and supply are at their highest when both curves are superimposed on each other and that is the price quantity that they want to acheive. On either side of that point, the price drops, so they would sell more gasoline (even though that is not where their profits are made) at a lower price and receive more revenue because of that lower price than they would now.
Aside from that, prove that oil companies are refusing to drill on land they “own” to keep the price up. And also prove that this “refusal” is not a result of a case of NIMBY or ban on drilling. Oh, and most importantly, prove that their is oil on the land they own. I know of land that refineries own, but their is no oil on it.
You can’t.
10. Eric T | June 17th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
This is good news, it will create good jobs.
People worry about oil spills like the Exxon Valdez, but at $130 a barrel, I don’t think a teaspoon of oil will be neglected. Oil/Water seperators and better technology combined with a coast guard and Navy that could be equipt with anything needed to deal with environmental disasters, will prevent anything like the Valdez from happening again, If you rent that movie about the Valdez spill, you see that slow response and no plans to deal with a spill like that, allowed it to become much worse than it should have been.
To show concern for the environment, have the emergency response crews and equiptment and plans in place, rehearsed and ready to respond before any drilling even starts.
11. dedosinuna | June 17th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
A “winning idea for November”? Or another painfully transparent pander that no one is buying and won’t work?
If the goal of this ploy is to bring down gas prices, then Mr McCain has a fundamental misunderstanding of both the most basic principles of supply and demand, and of oil as a commodity traded on world markets.
Of course, the price of oil is the single greatest determining factor in the price you pay for gasoline. McCain and other “interested parties” (read: oil companies) would have you believe that means we should open up more drilling at home to increase supplies. Sounds logical enough, right? Well, as usual, this argument leaves out a lot of information.
Oil is a world commodity whose price is determined by the supply and demand balance at the world level, not here in the US. What’s the price of Texas crude? About $135/barrel. North Sea Brent crude? $135/barrel. Saudi Sweet? - yep, $135/barrel. Small local fluctuations not withstanding, these prices are set on the great world markets.
On the supply side, the US is in no position to greatly influence prices world product, no matter how much drilling we do. It is an accident of geography that our territory controls an extremely tiny percentage of proven and estimated oil reserves. Even if every last drop of American oil were sucked up from every field in every corner of the US, including wilderness areas of Alaska and from all of our offshore areas, we could not bring enough oil to market to appreciably affect prices. It would be a mere drop in the bucket of the vast reserves of the Middle East and other oil-rich regions.
Allowing more oil drilling offshore will add a bit more to the already staggeringly high profits enjoyed by US oil corporations - but it will do next to nothing to help bring down the price of oil and gas, even in the short-term. Do not assume that just because US companies find more oil locally that this will affect gas prices. Again, the oil companies are going to sell the crude to refineries based on the price of oil on the world market, whether they get that oil out of Saudi Arabia or off the coast of Florida.
Where we can greatly affect oil prices is on the demand side. While the US is geologically capable of only ever producing a tiny supply relative to world reserves, we account for more than 40% of world demand.
Unfortunately, federal research funding into alternative energy technology was cut drastically starting in 2001 (gee, I wonder why?). Now we are trying to play catch-up after years of neglect in this realm. If we’d had an administration with more foresight, we might have been in much better shape right now, much further along in our goals of bringing alternative energy sources to market. But even as a temporary, short-term tactic, drilling for more oil locally will neither affect gas prices, nor will it spur more research into non-fossil alternatives.
If this is McCain’s “solution”, then he is indeed extremely ignorant of the basics of economics and of sound energy policy.
12. Brian (Boston) | June 17th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
McCain admitted offshore drilling would only be helpful in the short term, but would provide a good start in helping the U.S. develop other sources of energy. “We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gases through the development of alternate energy sources,” McCain said. “Exploration is a step toward the longer term goal.”
It will not help in the short term. It will help some in the long term. Then again, it sounds like he is begotten to the oil companies and does not really care about finding alternative energy sources. That’s not change we can believe in.
13. Andrew | June 17th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
My understanding is that offshore drilling will not result in the price of oil going down, but it will increase shareholder value for the oil companies. If you have your money invested in those companies, you can likely do very well if that happens. So, having my money invested as such, I support the offshore drilling.
Personally, like I’m sure most of us, I don’t give a damn about the soccer moms having to pay over a hundred dollars to fill their tanks to cart their kids around. If they are “true Americans,” they’ll pay the extra money and support the economy and not complain. The better my stock does, the more I spend, which benefits these lower class suckers!!
14. David B. Schmidt | June 17th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
It is unconventional oil reserves but recoverable
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/30/magazines/fortune/Oil_from_stone.fortune/index.htm
“…oil spills like the Exxon Valdez…” occurred during transportation. No oil was leaked or spilled during Katrina or any other hurricane that hit Texas through Florida that year.
If America started pumping 10 years ago instead of being blocked at every turn–we would not be in this mess now. Sure, unconventional oil is more expensive to raise; nonetheless, it would drive the speculators out of the market.
and “HeyNow” — only the first statement is a flip-flop; however a 300%+ increase in price might have something to do with that. If you comprehend the McCain plan–it is to lift the federal moratorium and return the choice to the states.
But then again–I think he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again..or something to that effect.
15. dedosinuna | June 17th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
David Schmidt -
“If America started pumping 10 years ago instead of being blocked at every turn–we would not be in this mess now.”
You seem to assume that it was environmentalists or democrats who prevented the recovery of this shale oil starting 10 years ago. In reality, getting this kind of oil is extremely expensive. 10 years ago, none of the oil companies would have been remotely interested in extracting this shale oil.
It is only when oil prices get to these levels that extracting it from shale becomes economical.
16. Magnum Serpentine | June 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Danish Artist, it was the Congress that revealed this not me. Look it up on Cspan sometime. And as for refineries, they could had built tons of them in the last 7 years of the george dictatorship but they did not because it would mean they would make more fuel and thus less profits. Thats also why they refuse to open more drills and bore other drill sites because it will mean more oil thus less profits. If we give them land on the coast they will just lock it away and not drill. because big oil knows if they open one more well, then the price at the pump will go down at least 0.25 per each well opened. that eats their profits and thus they will not open any more wells.
17. Greenskeeper | June 17th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Just a little conspiracy theory, since Cheney won’t allow the American people to see his notes with oil executives in preparation for the Bush energy legislation we have to speculate as to what their meeting notes would say; Cheney, “All you guys have to do is slow the flow of oil. With the certain rise in gasoline the American people will be begging you to take ANWAR. Better yet we will kick those environmentalist in the teeth once and for all.”
There were 183 operable refineries in 1992. Today in 2004 the number was 146.
18. David B. Schmidt | June 17th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
I stated that is was considered an unconventional oil reserve to point out that the world’s oil reserves do not only sit under Saudi Arabia. I also know that it is much more expensive to retrieve these unconventional types of reserves. The time has come.
Plus, I did not mean it was only Democrats or environmentalists that blocked the drilling of pumpable crude–but all of congress starting with the Federal moratorium and compounded ever since. If you ever drive the Alaskan Highway (right next to the pipeline) — you will notice the Caribou don’t mind at all. I grew up in the Everglades of Florida and unless you look–the pumping stations are hardly noticeable.
We basically got ourselves into this mess by listening to them congresscritters of all stripes. After the Carter presidency we should have demanded that we look out for our national interest in this regard (oil/gas) — we at least some of us did anyway–just not enough.
19. Martin Dean | June 17th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
The US Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) states, “Excessive speculation in any commodity under contracts of sale of such commodity for future delivery . . . causing sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in the price of such commodity, is an undue and unnecessary burden on interstate commerce in such commodity.”
Further, the CEA directs the CFTC to establish such trading limits “as the Commission finds are necessary to diminish, eliminate, or prevent such burden.” Where is the CFTC now that we need such limits?
“Until recently, US energy futures were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges within the United States, like the NYMEX, which are subject to extensive oversight by the CFTC, including ongoing monitoring to detect and prevent price manipulation or fraud. In recent years, however, there has been a tremendous growth in the trading of contracts that look and are structured just like futures contracts, but which are traded on unregulated OTC electronic markets.
The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from CFTC oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 in the waning hours of the 106th Congress.
All we need to do is bring energy trading back under CFCT and in one day, the speculators will be out of business and oil will return to $30.00 a barrel.
20. dedosinuna | June 18th, 2008 at 1:05 am
David Schmidt -
No, it wasn’t “congresscritters of all stripes” who kept the US from exploiting shale oil. It was simply the free market.
Back 10 years ago, why would you expect oil companies to attempt to extract oil from shale at a cost of $50-$100 per barrel, when they could only get $20 for that barrel of oil at the market?
But instead of trying to squeeze blood from stones at an enormous cost, how about we instead invest the research resouces into developing alternatives to fossil fuels? We should launch an Apollo program to develop safe, renewable forms of energy. The country that sent men to the moon in the 20th century shouldn’t have to burn carbon from fossilized plant goo to power the nation in the 21st.
btw, I would be curious to know how you know that Caribou “don’t mind” oil pipelines “at all”. You have conversations with Caribou? Well, that’s pretty interesting. Mr McCain obviously hasn’t spoken with these Caribou, because he is against drilling in ANWR. (But since he seems to want to drill offshore, he might be talking to the fish… )
21. Martin Dean | June 18th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Back in 2006, Hugo Chevez offered to sell his oil to the US for $50.00 a barrel. Bush refused because he did not want to undermine the powerful hold the Sauds have over the US.
The link to the article is below
http://www.progressive.org/mag_intv0706
22. Adam Johnson | June 18th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Speculation is just one element that brought the price of oil up. There is also market manipulation of supply.
In 1928, oil company chieftains (from Anglo-Persian Oil, now British Petroleum, from Standard Oil, now Exxon, and their Continental counterparts) were faced with a crisis: falling prices due to rising supplies of oil; the same crisis faced by their successors during the Clinton years, when oil traded at $22 a barrel.
The solution then, as now: stop the flow of oil, squeeze the market, raise the price. The method: put a red line around Iraq and declare that virtually all the oil under its sands would remain there, untapped. Their plan: choke supply, raise prices rise, boost profits. That was the program for 1928. For 2003. For 2008.
Again and again, year after year, the world price of oil has been boosted artificially by keeping a tight limit on Iraq’s oil output. Methods varied. The 1928 “Redline” agreement held, in various forms, for over three decades. It was replaced in 1959 by quotas imposed by President Eisenhower. Then Saudi Arabia and OPEC kept Iraq, capable of producing over 6 million barrels a day, capped at half that, given an export quota equal to Iran’s lower output.
In 1991, output was again limited, this time by a new red line: B-52 bombings by Bush Senior’s air force. Then came the Oil Embargo followed by the “Food for Oil” program. Not much food for them, not much oil for us.
In 2002, after Bush Junior took power, the top ten oil companies took in a nice $31 billion in profits. But then, a miracle fell from the sky. Or, more precisely, the 101st Airborne landed. Bush declared, “Bring’m on!” and, as the dogs of war chewed up the world’s second largest source of oil, crude doubled in two years to an astonishing $40 a barrel and those same oil companies saw their profits triple to $87 billion.
In response, Senators Obama and Clinton propose something wrongly called a “windfall” profits tax on oil. But oil industry profits didn’t blow in on a breeze. It is war, not wind, that fills their coffers. The beastly leap in prices is nothing but war profiteering, hiking prices to take cruel advantage of oil fields shut by bullets and blood.
23. Carlton Pryor, Lead Economist, TED-OG | June 18th, 2008 at 7:22 am
I find it odd and in no small measure offensive that none of you dolts realise that if you leave ANWR and offshore reserves alone and let the markets shake themselves out in the coming decades as oil becomes more scarce you will have available oil in the ground that you will be able to tap as a real SPR.
If you burn it all up now that would be insanity! Which would you rather do guzzle petrol in your giant SUVs or have lights and heat and small cars in 2050 when the rest of the world is gagging on € 200+ actual costs for a barrel of HIGH VITRIOL CRUDE or TAR SANDS CRUDE. Now imagine what that would mean for a barrel of Light Sweet Crude??? Can you say a prepared America could become an exporter of petroleum again?
24. Tom Thumb | June 18th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Supply and Demand has nothing to do with the price of oil. If you put an oil man in the White House, he will drive up he price of crude using market manipulation.
If the VP is the CEO of a company that makes money from war, you are going to have a war.
If your new candidate sold his soul to lobbyists, you are going to have chaos because industry will run the government, not the will of the people.
25. Danish Artist | June 18th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Tom Dumb…
ok, you were obviously educated in a government school.
Stop listening to the conspiracy MoveOn.org types and the liberal talking points.
So Obama, sold his soul to environmentalists, trial lawyers, big banking and whoever else we don’t know about. The “will of the people” only goes so far as Obama can exploit, anything else is trivial.
MS,
I will not waste my time “looking it up”. You will provide proof or STFU!
A politician grandstanding on C-SPAN is really a “reliable source”. Please, it is an election year and the liberal Democrats need as many scapegoats, scandals, controversies and conspiracies as they can. Their platform is nothing new that they haven’t ran on in 30 years.
Also, we don’t “give them land” - you are a kook! - they LEASE it. They are not going to spend money on a lease and sit on it, PLUS there is a requirement to drill!
Dealing with morons is getting tiresome.
26. HarkeysBar | June 18th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
DA,
I will not disagree that there is a lot of anger and hate coming from the left. But you, knowingly or unknowingly, are engaged in the same kind of demonization.
For one to constantly attack one party and “liberal” ideology as you do, never giving the benefit of the doubt, always stretching the truth to paint them in the worse possible light… that’s hatred. That adds to the cacophony of anger that drives out political media culture.
You generalize and try and paint all liberals as hateful people that belong to an ideology that’s rooted in evil. You are bad for this country.
27. Danish Artist | June 18th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Harkey,
The liberal Democrats have rejected Bush’s call to lift the ban on offshore drilling.
It’s not rocket science to KNOW that the liberal democrats would reject this. Giving them “the benefit of the doubt” would be a fool’s errand.
Ideology rooted in evil?
Where did I presume that?
If you mean by evil that liberals do not have this country’s best interest at heart - well then, guilty as charged. Since their legislation and ideology has led this country to the highest gasoline/oil prices, mortgage foreclosures, excessive food prices, etc. etc., it would be accurate to say that these activities were not for the good.
The liberal democrats once again are putting politics before the good of this nation. That is evil.
28. David B. Schmidt | June 18th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
dedosinuna,
I must have confused you as I was taking on several different subjects in the same posting. I will try to write clearly in the future. The shale oil under the four states was to show that Saudi Arabia does not have the largest reserves in the world–maybe the largest sweet crude and easily pumped–but we don’t have to go to them for jack.
The other point was at the end of the Clinton administration with the help of congresscritters from both sides we got our current no-drill policy which it is time to remove–now it is the Democrats that won’t lift it. It will be five to ten years out before it comes on line so we need to get started drilling everywhere.
An additional point you raised is if I talk to the Caribou. No, but I do have friends that are wildlife researchers including ones that spent more time than I would care to in places like Prudoe Bay. The population of Caribou has tripled and never seem to mind the workers.
Now ANWR is desolate compared to where we currently drill but is off limits? Wonder how many people have actually been there? I cerntainly don’t want to vacation there anytime soon. I do know that the rigs off the coasts and the ground pumping stations haven’t caused any environmental damage so why not more including refineries to process it?
I guess the environmentalists needs a new boogie man since the spotted owl in the old growth forests was proven to be a bogus claim.