While eyes are turned to financial issues, the dems are trying to kill drilling

[audtatious]

So, the Democrats, headed by Pelosi, are trying to press through some legislation concerning oil drilling. Per Jeb Hensarling (Dallas Congressman):

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, today issued the following statement after House Democrats released a discussion draft of a continuing resolution that included a provision to actively and permanently prevent exploration of nearly 90 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf and block energy production in the Inter-Mountain West:

“On October 1, the bans on offshore drilling and oil shale recovery will expire, enabling us to develop more American energy. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi and Democrats in the House have made clear that they will continue to actively prevent exploration from occurring.

“Since the Democrats took control of Congress, Americans have seen prices at the pump increase by 75 percent. Americans watched as Democrats, led by Speaker Pelosi, took a five-week vacation this summer while they suffered. Americans also watched as Democrats brought a hoax, no energy-energy bill to the floor last week. And today, Americans watch as Democrats prevent access to American energy in a bill designed to keep the government functioning. Once again, when it comes to providing solutions to help lower fuel prices for Americans, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats are more out of tune than a rusty piano.

“Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have made clear their desire to appease environmental extremists while fooling the American people into thinking that they support Republican efforts to open up America’s energy resources.”

Pelosi's bill, HR 6899, only allows opening a tiny portion of the available offshore drilling area and establishes permanent bans on developing most other domestic energy souces including natural gas and oil shale. Further, it does nothing to develop nuclear power. It passed the House earlier this month and is now in the Senate.

This bill has now been added to a new "Continuing Resolution" in order to help get it passed as is.

Why don't they just go ahead and outlaw cars? Unbelievable. If this was a Republican measure the MSM would be all over it and repeating it as headline news for a week.

[Encryptshun]

So what does the bill actually say? If it permits all drilling/exploration without regard to mitigating circumstance (i.e. wildlife refuges, fishing lanes, coastal economies, proper safety measures), then it should be struck down. If Republicans try to ram-rod a loose bill without proper oversight and regulation, then congress is doing its job to make sure we put the brakes on and make certain that we aren't sacraficing the will of the people for the pocketbooks of Big Oil.

Let's stop the partisanship and start looking at the whole picture. This polarization is destroying us -- we need to get back to compromise on BOTH sides of the aisle.

EDIT -- after reading the actual Washington Times article (dated August 4, 2008) and re-reading aud's post, please strike my prior comments from the record.

The Democrats have sponsored a bill under which the coastal shelf is open to new drilling, so long as the land on which that drilling is to take place has been registered and authorized (i.e. in compliance with ecological, environmental, and regulatory oversight).

Do the Republicans have a "sister" bill that opens up offshore drilling with a different set of requirements? I haven't seen that yet, if it exists. Bush was, as of 9/17 uncertain whether or not to extend the ban on his own. What is the GOP doing to pressure him to take steps to get us moving in the right direction? I'm not trolling here -- I'm asking those who track GOP movements better than I do.

Modified by Encryptshun at 4:58 PM 9/23/2008
Modified by Encryptshun at 4:59 PM 9/23/2008

[srellim234]

Let's stop the partisanship and start looking at the whole picture. This polarization is destroying us -- we need to get back to compromise on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Don't expect that to happen anytime soon. The Democrats here are simply "my guys' way or the highway", not even willing to talk about it. Half the time they make up nicknames for McCain that are nothing but derogatory and show disdain for the other side. Plus, the Democrats are only willing to cite left-leaning sources for their confirmations.

The Republicans here are even worse, not even capable of saying Obama's name properly. Republicans talking as spokespersons on T.V. and radio are not capable of an independent thought, only capable of reading, verbatim, the script put ou by the campaign or the White House that morning. Ask them for an independent thought in their own words and they're either not capable or not allowed to. A perfect socialist attitude.

Neither side has any civil respect for the other and if both sides continue to demonstrate that attitude the current political system is doomed to fail.

[96Qowner]

You're totally correct about the partisans, but I think the condemnation was aimed at politicians.

And ... if that's truly important, we'd be most impressed by a politician that is more concerned with getting important legislation passed, than in being obstructionist and working from one extreme end of the political spectrum. Those politicians are fairly rare, because in doing so, they usually lose the support of their Party. Joe Lieberman is one example. His Party actually ran an opponent against him in their own primary because he refused to toe the Party line regarding the Iraq war. The Democrats were successful, too. But he had enough support in Connecticut to run as an Independent and he was able to beat the Democratic opponent in the general election.

Another example is John McCain. He has enough respect among his colleagues in the Senate that he has been able to successfully buck the Republican Party several times.

Barack Obama has never strayed from the Party line.

So, which Presidential candidate would be more likely to get Congress to work together on important legislation - the guy who's done it successfully several times in the past, or the one who's never even tried?

[srellim234]

The problem with McCain is that he has sold his soul to the hard right party base to get elected. He is no longer the principled maverick he once demonstrated he was. He is now a pretty confused old man. Sorry, Republicans, but blind loyalty doesn't change things.

If elected, it is that party base that will prevent McCain from accomplishing anything meaningful. d!ck Cheney has proven that you don't need to be the President to run the country, just have a naive, non-inquisitive person in the Oval Office and the operatives below will drive their agenda. Those same operatives are on McCain and Palin's staffs now and will subvert the elected officials above them.

Those are the same people who will do whatever they can to prevent cooperation with Obama should he get elected. They control the Republican machine and purse strings and will control most senators and representatives through the use of intimidation.

Yes, Obama totes the party line. He is not the solution, either. But at least he can try to root out some of those subversives through his Democratic appointments. That alone might be worth a shot at giving him four years in the White House. I'm not voting for him, but I can understand why someone would, given the circumstances.

Unfortunately, a fiscal conservative and social liberal like Bill Gates isn't running in this election so we're stuck with the candidates who are running. And as a country we will continue our downward spiral as a result.

As far as the criticism being directed at politicians, it applies here as well. You don't foster a positive environment for discussion and finding solutions by insulting the very people you're supposed to be discussing things with. How many times have we seen threads in this forum started or continued with insulting nicknames? The intention behind using such nicknames is clear and hostile.

[96Qowner]

As far as the criticism being directed at politicians, it applies here as well. You don't foster a positive environment for discussion and finding solutions by insulting the very people you're supposed to be discussing things with. How many times have we seen threads in this forum started or continued with insulting nicknames? The intention behind using such nicknames is clear and hostile.

Ok, guilty as charged. I have, on occasion, referred to the honorable Barack H. Obama as "Barry". (You might have noticed that this thread has no such insulting nicknames.)

There is another effective means of avoiding constructive discussions, and that is to progressively change the subject.



Do you think Pelosi and Reid's 2-year Congress has been constructive or obstructionist? Do you favor HR6899? To me, it looks like cynical window dressing, meant purely as political cover. To me, it looks like it accomplishes absolutely nothing.

[Jesda]

The problem with McCain is that he has sold his soul to the hard right party base to get elected. He is no longer the principled maverick he once demonstrated he was. He is now a pretty confused old man. Sorry, Republicans, but blind loyalty doesn't change things.

Seems more like lip service to the GOP to me. Still a RINO in my book.

[AZhitman]

My references to the swooning and fainting crowd and their Beatle-esque fawning as "Obamallamas" notwithstanding....

I do take issue with Pelosi and Co's obstructionist stance here.

Why is it not being more widely reported that the left is flip-flopping on this issue? Does Obama support their position?

[srellim234]

I have never been a fan of Pelosi and quite frankly believe that both the Democratic leaders in the government AND the Republican leaders in the government should ALL be removed from power. They have done nothing but help themselves to the trough of power, capitalizing on it and making big money for themselves and their supporters at the expense of the American taxpayer.

None of this "throw all the bums out except MY bum" stuff, either. Throwing all the bums out includes our local rep here, Dave Dreier (R), who started out idealistic and great way back when but has since succumbed to the mindless Republican script put out there for him to repeat word for word. As well, the Democratic senators from this state, Boxer and Feinstein should be thrown out. Dump 'em all from both sides and let's start over again.

Then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion and decent legislation on offshore drilling.

[Encryptshun]

In case anyone is interested in reading the actual bill (HR 6899) rather than spin from either camp, here it is:

http://www.govtrack.us/congres...-6899

I also edited my original post at the top of this thread. Rough day, brain not working at 100%. Need beer. Apologies.

[96Qowner]

Ok, here's one objection for starters:

How lame is the energy bill that Speaker Nancy Pelosi had her House Democrats pass through the House on Tuesday? Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu said before the vote that Pelosi's handiwork would be "dead on arrival" in the Senate. This from a Democrat who's up for re-election in an oil-and-gas state that would seem to gain from the bill's much-ballyhooed expansion of offshore drilling?

What gives? For starters, Landrieu knows that the limited drilling the House leadership allows in principle -- it opens up waters 50 miles from shore with state approval -- is made next to impossible in practice. How? By not allowing states to share in the revenues. Why would they agree to oil rigs off their shores when there's nothing in it for them?

http://www.oregonlive.com/news....html

Does HR6899 share revenues with the States?

[Encryptshun]

Excellent article. Thanks!

I'd still like to read the text of the Republican alternative to HR 6899, though. I've tried to google for it - I guess I'm just panning dry.

Also regarding the states getting a cut from the drilling activities, help me understand what would "normally" happen. The states get to tax the operation of the rigs? Part of the profits from the oil companies go to the states? At 50 - 100 miles offshore, do the states still have jurisdiction and mineral rights? Is the Coast Guard that patrols those waters funded by the state? Wouldn't the state get a boost anyway thanks to increased federal taxation of the oil profits, which would then be distributed out to the states in terms of current assistance programs? Not to mention the people who work on those rigs paying state income taxes based on their state of residence (which might just be that particular state). Thanks.

[96Qowner]

I'd still like to read the text of the Republican alternative to HR 6899, though. I've tried to google for it - I guess I'm just panning dry.

Maybe it's HR6566, introduced in August?

http://www.gop.gov/energy/americanenergyact/

[audtatious]

At 50 - 100 miles offshore, do the states still have jurisdiction and mineral rights?

The US has rights, not sure about individual states.

[96Qowner]

Traditionally, States have taken a large portion of extraction royalties for themselves. This article explains it pretty well:

What was controversial in the 2006 law wasn’t opening up the acres to oil exploration: The area had previously been designated for drilling by the Clinton administration, though that was halted by President Bush in what was seen as a favor to his brother, Florida Republican Gov. Jeb Bush. But the revenue-sharing provision channeled 37.5 percent of drilling royalties to the closest coastal states — and away from the federal Treasury. Royalties from drilling on federal lands — on and offshore — now average about $9 billion a year, according to the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service.

According to Congressional Budget Office projections at the time, drilling leases and royalties from the 8.3 million acres opened in the 2006 law would generate about $1 billion in federal receipts and $405 million in revenue for the four affected states over the following 10 years. Louisiana would receive almost half the state money based on a formula that allocated shares according to each state’s distance from production. Landrieu’s office estimates that Louisiana will get $40 billion over 50 years.

http://www.marylandrieu.com/news/articles?id=0207

[audtatious]

Seems Reid is trying to kill Shale Oil now....

http://townhall.com/columnists...=true

[96Qowner]

I don't think I like oil shale very much. It's presently a TERRIBLE polluter, requiring gobs of water, but it's a HUGE source of oil (2 t-t-t-trillion barrels?!) if a better extraction technique could be developed.

But I'd still rather have each State decide what's good for its citizens, instead of Harry Reid. If Colorado wants to develop their oil shale resources, it shouldn't be any of Harry's business.

[audtatious]

The water itself is recycled so it's not really a polluter but yes it does require lots of it.

[96Qowner]

Hm, just did some research and it appears the newest extraction methods are promising. The in-situ heat extraction processes are far less polluting.

Nice. We could use another couple trillion barrels of oil.

[audtatious]

Yeah, I think they mention that on the History Channel deal about Oil.