Why won't the Democrats let us drill for oil?

Democratic argument # 1
· Drilling is pointless because the United States has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves.

This is a misleading because it refers only to known oil reserves. According to the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service (MMS), while there are an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil in the off-limits portions of the OCS, those estimates were made using old data from now-outdated seismic equipment. In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, the data were collected before Congress imposed a moratorium on offshore drilling in 1981. In 1987, the MMS estimated that there were 9 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. By 2006, after major advances in seismic technology and deepwater drilling techniques, the MMS resource estimate for that area had ballooned to 45 billion barrels. In short, there could be much more oil under the sea than previously known. The demand for energy is going up, not down. And for a long time, even as alternative sources of energy are developed, more oil will be needed.

Democratic argument # 2
· The oil companies aren't using the leases they already have.

According to the MMS, there were 7,457 active leases as of June 8. Of those, only 1,877 were classified as "producing." The five leases that have made up the Shell Perdido project off Galveston since 1996 are not classified as producing. Only when it starts pumping the equivalent of an estimated 130,000 barrels of oil a day at the end of the decade will it be deemed "active." Since 1996, Shell has paid rent on the leases; filed and had approved numerous reports with the MMS, including an environmentally sensitive resource development plan and an oil spill recovery plan that is subject to unannounced practice runs by the MMS; drilled several wells to explore the area at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars; and started constructing the necessary infrastructure to bring the oil to market. The notion that oil companies are just sitting on oil leases is a myth. With oil prices still above $100 a barrel, that charge never made sense.

Democratic argument # 3
· Drilling is environmentally dangerous.

Opposition to offshore drilling goes back to 1969, when 80,000 barrels of oil from an offshore oil well blowout washed up on the beaches of Santa Barbara. In 1971, the Interior Department instituted a host of reporting requirements (such as the resource development and oil spill recovery plans mentioned above) and stringent safety measures. Chief among them is a requirement for each well to have an automatic shut-off valve beneath the ocean floor that can also be operated manually. According to the MMS, between 1993 and 2007, there were 651 spills of all sizes at OCS facilities (in federal waters three miles or more offshore) that released 47,800 barrels of oil. With 7.5 billion barrels of oil produced in that time, that equates to 1 barrel of oil spilled per 156,900 barrels produced. That's not to minimize the danger. But no form of energy is perfect or without trade-offs. Besides, if it is acceptable to drill in the Caspian Sea and in developing countries such as Nigeria where environmental concerns are equally important, it's hard to explain why the United States should rule out drilling off its own coasts.


The strongest argument against drilling is that it could distract the country from a pursuit of alternative sources of energy. There's no question that the administration has been lax on that front. True leadership would emphasize both alternative sources and rational approaches to developing oil and natural gas. No, the United States cannot drill its way to energy independence. But with the roaring economies of China and India gobbling up oil in the two countries' latter-day industrial revolutions, the United States can no longer afford to turn its back on finding all the sources of fuel necessary to maintain its economy and its standard of living. What's required is a long-term, comprehensive plan that includes wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and nuclear -- and that acknowledges that oil and gas will be instrumental to the U.S. economy for many years to come.




Source: http://www.washingtonpost...45_pf.html

Yeah, it makes perfect sense to keep putting a band-aid on the real problem.

Stymie said:

Here is what the Republicans would have us believe:

Although THEY enacted the ban on offshore drilling (President George H. W. Bush), and although THEY continued that ban by vote in Congress during 14 straight years of GOP control, and although THEIR coastal state governors all opposed offshore drilling until this year, and although THEY never once saw the upcoming boom in demand, we should listen to THEIR plan.

Yeah, right.

The BEST thing you can say about Republicans in this issue is that they have been behind the curve since Day 1.

Off-shore drilling will not bring down the current oil prices. The current crisis is not the result of oil shortage, but a higher demand, mainly from China and many African nations. When there's a higher demand, the prices go up.

Republicans act like the oil from off-shore drilling would stay in America. That's an illusion. The government doesn't own the oil companies, and the oil companies will continue to offer the oil on the global market. Most likely, much of the oil will end up in China anyway.

The only way to bring down gas prices is to decrease the demand for oil.

MrSoulpower said:

RodeoSchro said:

I just don't understand it. There is a huge demand for oil. There is plenty of oil in off shore territory and ANWR. Why can't we use our natural resources?

greenpixies said:

greenpixies said:

namepeace said:

greenpixies said:

SUPRMAN said:

MrSoulpower said:

greenpixies said:

namepeace said:

MrSoulpower said:

greenpixies said:

greenpixies said:

MrSoulpower said:

SUPRMAN said:

greenpixies said:

greenpixies said:

MrSoulpower said:

Pixies, you could at least mention the source for your last post, a story under the headline "Dispelling Myths About Nuclear Energy":

http://www.heritage.org/r...bg2087.cfm

Besides, you do know that the Heritage Foundation is not exactly the most unbiased organization to consult about Nuclear Energy? The Foundation is conservative think tank to promote conservative ideals, nuclear energy and anti-alternative energy missions included.

But anyway, I'll give it a shot.

A successful terrorist attack against a nuclear power plant could have severe consequences, as would attacks on schools, chemical plants, or ports. However, fear of a terrorist attack is not a sufficient reason to deny society access to any of these critical assets.

Well, the fear of a terrorist attack was enough for the Heritage Foundation to support the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that post no threat to the national security of our country. But that doesn't surprise me ..

The United States has 104 commercial nuclear power plants, and there are 446 worldwide. Not one has fallen victim to a successful terrorist attack.

Great. Before 9/11, no one had ever flown a commercial airliner into a major public building, maybe that's why Bush wasn't too concerned with the warnings..

Ok, I'm done. The rest is just laughable, neo-conservative propaganda pro nuclear energy and against alternative energy ...

MrSoulpower said:

Pixies, you could at least mention the source for your last post, a story under the headline "Dispelling Myths About Nuclear Energy":

http://www.heritage.org/r...bg2087.cfm

Besides, you do know that the Heritage Foundation is not exactly the most unbiased organization to consult about Nuclear Energy? The Foundation is conservative think tank to promote conservative ideals, nuclear energy and anti-alternative energy missions included.

But anyway, I'll give it a shot.

A successful terrorist attack against a nuclear power plant could have severe consequences, as would attacks on schools, chemical plants, or ports. However, fear of a terrorist attack is not a sufficient reason to deny society access to any of these critical assets.

Well, the fear of a terrorist attack was enough for the Heritage Foundation to support the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that post no threat to the national security of our country. But that doesn't surprise me ..

The United States has 104 commercial nuclear power plants, and there are 446 worldwide. Not one has fallen victim to a successful terrorist attack.

Great. Before 9/11, no one had ever flown a commercial airliner into a major public building, maybe that's why Bush wasn't too concerned with the warnings..

Ok, I'm done. The rest is just laughable, neo-conservative propaganda pro nuclear energy and against alternative energy ...

greenpixies said:

I think the more appropriate question is why didn't Bush lift the Executive ban when he had 2 houses willing to pass this legislation?

greenpixies said:

MrSoulpower said: