Obama Drops Opposition to Offshore Drilling

[Pangloss]

Obama changed his position on offshore drilling today, saying that he would support limited offshore drilling. He did this in support of a new bipartisan bill from a group of ten senators intended to increase domestic oil production. The bill would expand drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coasts of four southeastern states (if they permit it).

 

"I welcome today's bipartisan effort as an important step in the process of reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil," Obama said in a statement.

 

"I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact," he said.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0140632620080802?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112

 

He's right, IMO. That's exactly the way to do it. Follow the science, listen to all the arguments, and make a decision that makes sense, while recognizing its limitations.

 

That's exactly how political leadership is supposed to work.

 

---

line[/hr]

More on the new Senate bill from the Gang of 10 can be found here:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5920512.html

 

One interesting aspect of the bill is that any oil company that participates in the new drilling areas would apparently lose the federal tax exemptions they currently enjoy. These are the tax exemptions that have come under so much fire since oil prices began to soar. It's an interesting twist, and could even work given current high profit margins. ExxonMobil is apparently spending more money than ever before on the search for new domestic oil sources (according to that new quarterly record profit report yesterday). Perhaps they'd be interested.

 

All of this comes after a funny story out of the US House of Representatives this afternoon after the House adjourned for the Summer at 11am (must be nice). Apparently some House Republicans tried to keep the debate going, and Speaker Pelosi had the LIGHTS turned off in the House chamber. (rofl)

 

All of which is very amusing, but I don't think the American people are very tolerant of grandstanding by either side of the aisle at the moment. Not with congressional approval in the single digits.

[iNow]

I think it's a smart political move because it will open many conversations "across the aisle" for green and renewable power technology. He's giving them some of what they want to get from them some of what he wants.

 

I, however, hate the idea that we're even considering more burning of fossil fuels so far into the future, and I disagree with this approach (that more drilling = good), but I'm just a guy who's read the data and cares about my health and the health of my children... you know, a leftie tree hugger who has a valid understanding of the predicament we've created for ourselves.

[bascule]

I'm more concerned this is just a land grab. They already control huge supplies of untapped oil. They just want more.

 

That said, I don't think it's too bad to give it to them in exchange for losing federal tax credits is too bad of a compromise.

[Pangloss]

Pelosi talked about that on The Daily Show this week, saying that Republicans shouldn't be asking for more because the oil companies already have access to undeveloped areas. I'd been thinking about asking Peak Oil Man to comment on it, because I'm just not sure I understand the situation.

[iNow]

Basically, they have available to them already a buttload of land... have for years... and have chosen not to drill it. Now, instead of starting drilling on that land already in their posession, they are asking for more drilling rights in other areas.

 

It's been the subject of discussion for months on the Sunday morning programs. Everyone is basically asking, "why don' you use what you already have first?"

 

 

It's sort of like the woman carrying a ham under one arm, a bottle of wine under the other, and crying to everyone because she has no bread.

[Pangloss]

Basically' date=' they have available to them already a buttload of land... have for years... and have chosen not to drill it. Now, instead of starting drilling on that land already in their posession, they are asking for more drilling rights in other areas.

[/quote']

 

Exxon Mobile is apparently spending more money than ever.... yet how's that discovery doing? We are still only finding about 4 to 5 billion barrels a year, while we burn 30 billion a year! So we are currently eating into oil our grandparents discovered 5 times faster than we are discovering it.

 

This is exactly why I sent POM a PM (er, there's a pun there somewhere) to drop in on this thread and render an expert opinion on this. I had a suspicion that Pelosi was just blowing smoke, and that seems to confirm it. Politics as usual on BOTH sides of the aisle.

 

(By the way, not to complain, but a number of people seem to have trouble with it, so I want to point out that it's spelled "ExxonMobil"; it's just one word and one company. I mention it merely because we talk about that company a good bit here, and I think it lends credibility to the discussion (especially amongst passers-by, google-bots, etc) if we use the correct terminology. Thanks.)

[Pangloss]

If you really want, you can call ExxonMobil "The split-and-rejoined former Standard Oil Corporations of New York and New Jersey" ("TSARFSOCONYANJ"?) if you like -- just don't call it "late for dinner"! I don't really care. I just wanted to point out that it's not "Exxon Mobile", which gets said a lot here (not just by you).

[bascule]

Umm, Google found the answer pretty quickly. Teach a man to fish...

 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/economy/oil_drilling/index.htm?cnn=yes

 

Of the 90 million offshore acres the industry has leases to, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, it is estimated that upwards of 70 million are not producing oil, according to both Democrats and oil-industry sources.

 

One Democrat staffer said if all these existing areas were being drilled, U.S. oil production could be boosted by nearly 5 million barrels a day, although the oil industry said that number is far too high and one government agency said it was impossible to estimate production.

 

But:

 

Rather, years of exploration is required before drilling can even begin. In some cases, no oil is found on leases they hold. In others, drilling the wells and building the pipelines takes years. It is especially hard now that a worldwide boom in oil exploration has pushed up the prices - and timelines - for skilled workers and specialized equipment.

[Pangloss]

Yet this will not help the problem because even if it started tomorrow, by the time America ramped up to peak production in 15 to 20 years, America's own 8mbd would have declined to about 6 or 5... and then there's the problem of economic and population growth!

 

I'm confused, that sounds like a solution to me. American consumption is dropping in spite of growth. If you predict it will drop that significantly, then additional production works to our benefit. We can sell the oil or cap the wells if the world market also dries up (which seems unlikely in that short time frame).

 

That sounds like progress to me, in every sense except perhaps global warming. And in that arena if the United States is making that kind of progress, then presumably we'll have greater leverage in leading other countries to do the same. That was the whole point of Kyoto, after all.

[Pangloss]

Oh I see, you meant output (in that line I quoted); I thought you meant consumption. That number should have caught me -- consumption is something like 20 million bpd, not 8. Just didn't do the reality check before posting. Sorry about that.