• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Who Will Fight It? I wonder.................

Mike

Well-known member
Offshore Oil Drilling to Get Another Look in Congress
Wednesday, June 11, 2008

E-Mail Respond Print Share:

WASHINGTON — With oil and gas prices reaching record highs and little relief in sight, Republican members of Congress are looking at a long-sought, but so far unsuccessful plan to open American shores up to more petroleum exploration.

Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa. is leading the charge Wednesday, when he'll push for an amendment to a spending bill that would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.

"For 27 years, Congress has deliberately locked up vast offshore oil and natural gas reserves," Peterson said, according to USA Today. "With the price at the pump increasing daily — with no end in sight — and the cost of natural gas trading at record levels, Congress needs to unlock these reserves."

Most oil production and exploration has been banned since 1981.

According to Peterson's office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.

Peterson is not alone in his desire to open up the shelf. An effort to unlock the resources has been underway in Congress in recent years, and several interest groups are backing the effort, too.

"Tapping America's huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on gasoline prices," Greg Schnacke, President of Americans for American Energy, said in a news release, adding: "With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS should be developed."

But the proposal has faced staunch opposition from environmental groups from states where the shorelines are under consideration for drilling, like Florida.
 

fff

Well-known member
There are some state's rights issues here. For example, California took the Bush Administration to court and won this case:

On 2 December, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of the State of California to review and disapprove federal offshore oil and gas leases as not "consistent" with California laws to protect the coast and environment. The case was precipitated when former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt refused to cancel 36 undeveloped oil leases off the central California coast. The State of California sued, arguing that the development of the leases would damage its coastal waters and fisheries. In the case, State of California v. Gale Norton (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 01-16637), announced the 2nd, the 3-judge panel upheld a June 2001 lower court decision that the U.S. illegally extended leases over California's objections. The ruling is a major setback for the Bush Administration's efforts to open up the west coast to offshore oil development. Under the California Coastal Management Program, adopted pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 USC 1451-1565), such a state consistency finding is required before a federal offshore oil lease program can proceed. The Administration sought to judicially strip or limit that state consistency finding authority.

California has long held that development of those 36 leases would not be consistent with state law and would, among other things, jeopardize key marine fisheries (see Sublegals 5:07/01; 5:02/01).

The Bush Administration has proposed canceling and buying back similar old leases offshore Florida (see Sublegals 5:22/02), but refused to consider the same remedy for California. Critics of the Administration claimed President George W. Bush's special deal with Florida was to provide re-election support for his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, in a state where oil development is unpopular (see Sublegals 6:03/01). The issue of opposing federal offshore oil development also became a focal point in California Governor Gray Davis's successful reelection campaign, where Davis ran opposing extension of the federal leases. California has a state moratorium on offshore oil development; however a federal moratorium has to be periodically renewed and is expected to be a point of contention in the incoming 108th Congress and in the Administration's Energy Policy.

In addition to the CZMA consistency issue, the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower U.S. District Court's ruling that the federal Minerals Management Service (MMS) did not do an adequate analysis of the environmental consequences of its offshore development program. The Administration's only available judicial remedy now is an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but so far officials have not indicated whether they will seek higher court review.

An alternative to an appeal of the decision, which sets a binding legal precedent for all western U.S. states within the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction, may be an effort by the Administration to dilute the "consistency" provision in the CZMA law itself in the next Congress. Such a move, however, would face strong opposition from most coastal states, including those with Republican Governors. For more information on the ruling, see the 3 December Environment New Service article [below]. The case ruling itself can be found at:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F8F25FC93000BD9C88256C83006210DC/$file/0116637.pdf?openelement.

Edited to add that John McCain supports the state's right to decide.

John McCain says that he believes that States should decide whether or not to allow offshore drilling for oil. However, he also believes that the Federal Government could offer some "incentives" that would encourage them to do so.

http://blogsforjohnmccain.com/mccains-federalist-approach-offshore-drilling
 

fff

Well-known member
Florida Republican Senators want to keep drilling 150 miles away.

The panel's two Florida lawmakers, who have fought to keep the area near that state's panhandle off-limits to drilling, also voted against Domenici's plan. They favour a plan that would keep drilling at least 150 miles (241 km) off Florida's coast.

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35554/newsDate/9-Mar-2006/story.htm
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
But this exercise is to drill at least 50 miles offshore.
I am a big states' rights advocate but 50 miles does seem far enough "out" to me. I guess we need to see some kind of evidence as to the harm etc. it will do. With today's technology it seems the benefits would outweigh the harm but I am not an oceanographer either.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
GW and his Gang threw out "States Rights" long ago- about the same time GW called the Constitution "that old rag" or something like that and annointed himself above it....

What is needed right now in D.C. is for those folks to forget about their oil company and greenie lobbyists-- sit down and come up with a compromise bill that closes the Enron Loophole and again oversees and regulates speculators- proposes some method (tax or whatever) to force Oil Companies to use some of their massive record profits toward exploration and development ( building new refineries, seeking new oil fields, seeking alternative energy sources)- allows and opens up more off shore drilling and opens ANWR - eases some of the restrictions/regulation/paperwork required to build new or expand existing refineries and coal plants- and let them expedite permits and building ....

Both parties need to do some give and take- and eat a little crow- but they're all too damned scared they'll PO the groups that are stuffing their pockets- so all they are doing is sitting around making speech's calling each other names...
 

fff

Well-known member
TSR said:
Mike said:
But this exercise is to drill at least 50 miles offshore.
I am a big states' rights advocate but 50 miles does seem far enough "out" to me. I guess we need to see some kind of evidence as to the harm etc. it will do. With today's technology it seems the benefits would outweigh the harm but I am not an oceanographer either.

I don't know if they base their objections on actual information about currents or oil spills or what? I'm just pointing out to Mike that it's not all Dems who are blocking offshore drilling. Jeb Bush objected to drilling off FL when he was running for reelection. After he got elected again, he changed his tune.

Like OT says, why not drill in MT? There's apparently lots of oil and they're welcomed by the state. Cost, maybe?
 
Top