The Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969 spurred the environmental movement. (usgs.gov)
McCain Bets on Off Shore Drilling
GOP Hopeful Trades California for a Shot at the Heartland
By Sherry Bebitch Jeffe
07/30/2008
| 11 Comments
**Editor's Note: This piece has been updated to include the results of a new poll released July 30.
On a January afternoon in 1969, Paradise was violated and the modern environmental movement was born.
Six miles off the coast of Santa Barbara, Calif., a “blowout” erupted below a Union Oil Co. platform, spewing crude oil from drilling-induced cracks in the Santa Barbara Channel floor.
It took almost two weeks to cap the leak and, before it was plugged, the oil spill had grown to more than 3 million gallons. It spread across 800 square miles of ocean, spoiling more than 35 miles of Southern California’s coast.
Illustration by: Matt Mahurin
Dead and injured sea animals and birds washed up along the beaches, covered in the black goo. Images of the devastation, transmitted around the world, helped galvanize environmentalists and triggered the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of the Clean Air Act.
In the wake of Santa Barbara’s calamity, the U.S. president, a Republican and a California native, observed, “What is involved is the use of our resources of the sea and of the land in a more effective way and with more concern for preserving the beauty and the natural resources that are so important to any kind of society that we want for the future. The Santa Barbara incident,” Richard M. Nixon concluded, “has frankly touched the conscience of the American people.”
Offshore oil drilling became a “third rail issue” in California politics—touch it and you die. It’s remained so for nearly 40 years— particularly for state Democrats, who rely on environmentalists as a key constituency. And, by-and-large, the nation went along.
Then, with skyrocketing oil and gas prices, and increasing economic distress, President George W. Bush announced he was lifting the presidential moratorium on offshore drilling. He called on Congress to lift its ban as well. Offshore oil drilling has resurfaced as a hot-button issue on the national level. It is an issue that divides voters and the two presidential candidates.
When the 2008 campaign began, both Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama opposed offshore drilling. Mc Cain had also opposed it in his unsuccessful 2000 presidential bid. Both McCain and Obama were—somewhat successfully — wooing environmentalists. McCain’s green energy stand was one way he could distance himself from an extraordinarily unpopular president.
Why then did McCain reverse himself and call for lifting offshore drilling restrictions —even before Bush lifted the presidential ban? His switch angered environmental groups he’d been wooing for years. In California, his switch irked many moderate Republicans, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had endorsed McCain, but who roundly criticized the Arizona senator’s new take on offshore drilling.
Taking a calculated risk that voter anger about high fuel prices would trump environmentalism in today’s economy, McCain positioned himself alongside to Bush on an issue that independents and Democrats -- as well as many suburban Republicans -- care about; McCain gambled on giving Obama an opening to link him to “the same misguided approach backed by President Bush,” as well as to “big oil companies.”
But McCain’s risk could pay off. Essentially, McCain has traded any likelihood of taking California in November -- a pie-in-the-sky assumption about this blue state, anyway -- for the possibility of gaining votes in crucial Heartland states, like Michigan and Ohio
In pivotal Florida, for example, Democrats and Republicans have long been united in their opposition to offshore drilling. But there now appears to be a shift in opinion favorable to McCain’s new stance. The state’s Republican governor, Charlie Crist, a V.P. prospect, changed sides to support McCain. In addition, a just-released Rasmussen survey shows that 57 percent of Florida voters now favor of offshore drilling, while only 32 percent do not. A slim majority of voters (51 percent) in this battleground state think reducing gas prices is more important than protecting the environment.
National polls reveal that voters might be ready to endorse lifting the ban. A Gallup poll in mid-May showed that 57 percent of respondents favored “[a]llowing oil drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas now off-limits to oil exploration.” Tellingly, there were significant partisan differences in support. Only 38 percent of Democrats agreed with this, compared to 80 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of those coveted independent voters.
A Rasmussen survey from June--before McCain announced his support--showed 67 percent of voters now support oil drilling off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18 percent disagree.
This survey, too, revealed a significant partisan divide -- 85 percent of Republicans favor offshore drilling, compared to 57 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of independent voters.
In California, on the other hand, a statewide Field Poll as recently as early July shows voters “remain opposed to the idea of allowing oil companies to drill more oil and gas wells along the California coastline.“ Fifty-one percent of Californians are opposed, and 43 percent approve. However, statewide opposition is down from a high of 62 percent in 1990 and 56 percent in 2001 and 2005.
There are partisan differences here, too. Republicans approve offshore drilling by 63 percent -- but that’s 17 points lower than their approval nationally. Democrats disapprove 61 percent to 31 percent (nationally their approval registers slightly higher, at 39 percent). Significantly, in the Golden State, 58 percent of independents disapprove of offshore drilling -- nationally that figure is 43 percent.
**However, a just-released survey by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) shows that Californians' support for offshore oil drilling has suddenly increased to 51 percent (up from 41 percent in 2007). According to the PPIC analysis, it's "the first time since 2003, when PPIC first posed the question, that more Californians favor offshore drilling than oppose it (45 percent), a shift caused in large part by a surge in support among Republicans (77 percent, up from 60 percent)." Six of 10 Democrats and half of independents still oppose offshore oil drilling to meet our energy needs. This shift in voter opinion, according to PPIC, is "one of many reactions to soaring gas prices."
Yet none of these numbers tell the entire story. They cannot gauge the intensity of public opinion. In the end, offshore oil drilling is an issue not unlike gun control. The passion is still on the side of its opponents. That could mobilize the environmental movement against McCain come the fall. For other voters the issue may have less importance, and be less motivating.
Both sides now think they can capitalize on the issue of oil drilling. Democrats are looking to gain ground with a flurry of ads attacking Republicans up and down the ballot for bedding down politically with Big Oil. At the same time, McCain is planning to assail the Democrats' inaction on oil independence, staging photo ops in front of oil wells.
It remains to be seen which strategy — if either — will pay political dividends. But it’s hard to imagine McCain striking an electoral gusher with his new embrace of offshore drilling for oil independence.
Sherry Bebitch Jeffe is a senior scholar at the University of Southern California's School of Policy, Planning and Development.
CATEGORIES IN THIS STORY:
© 2007 The Washington Independent
Comments:
Posted 07/30/2008 11:20am with
“A slim majority of voters (51 percent) in this battleground state think reducing gas prices is more important than protecting the environment.”
WOW. Thats amazing. What are these people thinking?
Posted 07/31/2008 04:19pm with
I don’t like Obamination, but I like McBush less; however, McBush may get my vote because of this issue. I believe that the price of oil is the #1 thing that can bring our economy down to its knees.
Health care has been an issue ever since I can remember, and the economy still grew.
We have been through many wars, even two world wars, and the economy still grew.
However, we have never been through a rapid and sustained increase in energy costs like we are currently experiencing, and because it has an impact on the price of everything we need like food, clothing and shelter, it has the potential to change not only the American standard of living but also that of the entire world.
We must do everything possible to bring down the cost of oil ASAP. That can be accomplished in two ways, by increasing the supply of oil and/or by decreasing the demand for it.
The demand cannot be decreased overnight. It will take a decade or two to reduce it enough to have a significant effect on the price.
On the other hand, increasing the supply will have the immediate effect of slowing down the rate of increase of the price and a long term effect of lowering the price.
Oil producers, if threatened with an increase of supply, will increase production to sell as much as it can before the new supply hits the market. That will cause the price increase to slow down, level off or maybe even drop.
When the new supply comes on line, the amount will determine how much the price will drop. The larger the new supply, the less the price.
According to “We don’t have to take $4 gas prices—we can drill,” written by Sterling Burnett in the Houston Chronicle (5/21/08), “It is estimated that beneath America’s coast lies enough oil to fuel 60 million cars in the United States for 60 years and enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years. … If allowed access to American oil reserves in Alaska and off our coastline, American oil companies could increase our country’s reserves an estimated fivefold, taking the United States from 11th place to fourth among the countries with proven oil reserves.”
Why would we leave a resource that Americans and the world are so dependent on in the ground? Why would we allow the small chance of an environmental accident to stop us from recovering the oil that we need so badly?
A large portion of the oil and gas for the US comes from the offshore fields of Texas and Louisiana. Hurricane Katrina, a Class 5 hurricane, ripped through these offshore rigs a few years ago, and not one of them had even a minor environmental problem. These rigs are built solid and safe, and the technology to build them is even better today than it was when the last generation of rigs was constructed.
The Santa Barbara “blowout” spilled 3 million gallons of oil that across spread over 800 square miles of ocean. Remember the Exxon Valdez accident? It spilled 10.8 million gallons that covered 11,000 square miles.
You decide, is it better to transport oil by tanker almost 8,000 miles across oceans or via pipeline from off the US coast and the Alaskan wilderness to its mainland?
Make your opinion known to your Representative and Senators. Let the Democratic National Committee know what you decide. If the Democratic Party’s platform doesn’t change, let them know at the polls in November.
We must take the small risk of environmental damage, which can be and has been fixed, to eliminate the big risk of seeing our economy in shambles. Nothing worth accomplishing is accomplished without risk.
For the benefit of every American and the rest of the world, Congress must allow American oil companies to recover the oil and natural gas that exists off the coast of California, in the Gulf of Mexico, in Georges Bank and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Posted 07/31/2008 06:39pm with
You can punch holes in the coastline until it looks like a sponge and drill holes everywhere else in the country that you can find an available piece of ground and the end result will be that gas prices will continue to rise. There are two reasons for this, first – the U.S. doesn’t have that much oil available and second – China and India will continue to suck up every bit of excess oil as they industrialize.
The only way we will ever get any kind of change is to get off the oil “tit” and develop a comprehensive energy policy that drives us to a non-oil future. Those who advocate more drilling are being incredibly selfish and not thinking about the future of the planet or what this world might look like for their kids.
Posted 07/31/2008 10:51pm with
Enough oil to fuel 60 million cars in the United States for 60 years and enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years isn’t “that much?” How can you make such a ridiculous statement, hagajim? That is more than enough oil to supply us while we continue working to develop alternate energy sources.
I agree that we need to wean ourselves off of oil, but tell me, how will you do that in enough time to save the economy? While you are saving 2% or 3% of our energy usage each year through conservation, the American people will not be able to afford to buy necessities. Do you think the government will take care of all of us?
What do you mean by “not thinking of the future of our planet?” You obviously aren’t even thinking of your immediate future. Without oil, what kind of future do you think there is for most of the people on the planet that need it for energy?
Get real, we have no choice but to use the God-given natural resources that are available to us. What harm will come from recovering oil from under the ocean’s floor, something we have been doing for over 50 years? We have been drilling oil in Alaska since 1977. Why do we have to quit doing that to save the planet? I don’t get it. Please help me understand.
Posted 08/01/2008 01:16pm with
McCain was paid off by the oil companies and immediately speculators started cashing in to reduce oil on the futures market to $122.00 per barrel. But the polls are asking the wrong questions. The polls should have the courage ask the voters what they know about the nature of the oil business itself, then once they indicate how little or much they know the next question should be whether they favor off-shore drilling:
1) The US currently EXPORTS how many barrels of oil per day:
a) 1000
b) 100,000
c) 500,000
d) 1.6 million
Correct answer: 1.6 million barrels per day are EXPORTED from the US to other countries
2) True or False: Oil companies have thousands of leases for which they have not drilled over the past 10 years.
Answer: True: They have 10,000 leases for which they have not drilled.
3) The price you pay at the pump is determined by”
a) Oil futures
b) Spot market
c) Refining capacity
d) b) and c) above
e) a) only
The correct anwser is b) and c). But if someone is willing to pay on the spot market the oil in a ship can go anywhere.
For a commodity they use so much of (21 million barrels per day) Americans are appalling ignorant of how the industry operates on a global basis. You have a fearful, not courageous, populaton easily manipulated by simple answers given by McCain….a population looking for any excuse not to be summoned to their greatness and taking risks but taking the easy way out…if that be the case just wait until oil hits $7 a barrel and NOT ONE DROP of any additional oil will ever come to the US, NOT ONE DROP.
Posted 08/01/2008 07:30pm with
It appears that sunnsea, instead of trying to give lessons, needs a lesson or two. He (or she) is correct that Americans are appalling ignorant of how the oil industry operates on a global basis. He seems to believe that he knows how it works, but if the answers to the questions that he presented are examples of what he knows, he also needs to study more with the rest of us. I don’t profess to know all the answers, but I know wrong ones when I see them because I get my information from the horse’s mouth, http://www.eia.doe.gov/, not from some reporter, columnist, newscaster or politician.
Besides being factually wrong or partially wrong in his three answers, he is wrong saying, ”... a fearful, not courageous, populaton (sic) … taking the easy way out.” Drilling for oil offshore and in ANWR is not the easy way out; it is the only way out for the American economy.
Sunnsea implies that we export 1.6 million barrels of crude oil each day. He is either misled or he is trying to deceive us by not telling the full story. Almost all of our exported petroleum is refined product, not crude oil. In May of this year, the last month that the Energy Information Administration published data on their website for, the US averaged exporting 1.806 million barrels of petroleum products daily. Only 19,000 barrels, barely over 1%, of the total was crude oil.
Of the remaining 1.787 million barrels, almost 70% consisted of light fuel oil (494,000 barrels), heavy fuel oil (393,000 barrels) and coke (350,000 barrels), which is an almost pure carbon solid by-product of refining that looks similar to coal. Finished gasoline accounted for 183,000 barrels, barely over 10% of the total, and the remaining 20+% left the country as liquefied petroleum gases, oxygenates, jet fuel, kerosene, asphalt, road oil, naphtha, lubricants, waxes and other miscellaneous products.
The biggest recipients of our exports are Mexico and Canada, the two largest importers to the US. Together they account for almost one third of the total of our exports. Another 30% is distributed to Central and South American countries and to Caribbean island nations. The remaining approximate 37% is exported mostly to European countries, and small amounts go to a few Asian and African countries.
I don’t know how accurate sunnsea’s statement is about the number of leases (10,000) that oil companies hold and aren’t drilling on, but a list of the top 100 oil and gas lease holders on federal lands according to the Bureau of Land Management as of March 2004 is located at http://wid.ap.org/oilgas/lease_acres.html.
Looking through the names, you will probably recognize fewer than a dozen. Many lease holders are individuals or companies that have acquired leases speculating that oil may be discovered nearby and an oil company will pay them handsomely for their leasehold. A website that explains how you can buy federal leases can be found at http://www.howtoadvice.com/OilLeases.
The oil companies didn’t bid on many of those areas because they didn’t have faith in discovering oil that could be profitably recovered from them. Tom Lonnie, formerly the BLM’s assistant director for minerals, realty and resource protection, said, “A lot of these areas where existing leases are being held onto may have low potential for production, based on industry analysis now. The industry is out there drilling the wells and doing the exploration, not us.”
There are additional factors besides the spot market price of oil and refining capacity that determines pump price of gasoline. A few are: seasonal demand, refining cost, marketing cost; distribution cost, profit, and federal and state gasoline tax.
Posted 08/04/2008 12:50pm with
jjs404, why are you so hostile. We all obviously want the same thing, and offshore drilling will not accomplish that objective.
FACT: there are 86 billion barrels of oil in “proven” reserves offshore (Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico). Of those 86 billion barrels, 68 billion are in areas already open to drilling, and 18 billion in areas that are off limits.
The reason that the oil companies are not drilling in those areas of proven reserves that are open to drilling is that it is not “economical” to drill in those areas. This is mainly because the ocean is deep in those areas which obviously increases the cost. If the oil companies actually cared about the American people they would sacrifice some of their record profits to increase the oil production. They don’t do that because their primary concern is for their shareholders. Secondly, they probably realize that whatever small percentage of the global supply of oil they could increase in these areas would do nothing to impact the price of oil.
FACT: the United States has recently reduced the overall consumption of gasoline over the last several months. This reduction resulted in an increase in the price of oil and gasoline. Why? Because China and India have both increased their usage which has more than offset the reduction of the United States. It is simple supply and demand. Yes, we can help (by a small percentage) the supply, but the demand we have very little control over as India and China continue to develop. (Did you hear about the $1000 car that India is introducing that will make it much easier for everyone there to own a car. Get ready for much more demand.) Another possible reason is the oil futures trading or spot trading as indicated by sunnsea. This is debatable.
The only long term solution is to get away from oil. I know that this may take a while, but I don’t believe that it will take as long as some people (oil companies) have projected. With the right motivation, I would not bet against the innovative abilities of our country. We already have electrochemical conversion (fuel cell) cars, and the Pickens plan for natural gas powered automobiles is very feasible and the infrastructure would not take very long to build. I support natural gas because it is cleaner and domestic.
One thing is for sure. There will be a huge lag from the date we start drilling to the day oil is produced. Depending on who you believe that lag is anywhere from a year to fifteen years. By then, there is no reason to doubt that an alternate form of energy for transportation use will be available. In the mean time, who knows what kind of environmental damage may occur from drilling in new areas.
My two cents.
Posted 08/05/2008 09:10pm with
I am sorry, fishtopher, that I left you with the impression that my responses were “so hostile.” I think the impression of hostility comes from my being frank instead of attempting to be politically correct. To be honest with you, it sickens me to see people not truthfully express their opinions because they fear the wrath or dislike of others. I am not one of those people. I am one who thinks outside of the box and tries to lead, not follow.
The original article stated that “a slim majority of voters (51 percent) in this battleground state (Florida) think reducing gas prices is more important than protecting the environment.” Reader ajm8127 challenged the thinking of those who were surveyed. My response was intended to defend them by pointing out that the environmental risk of offshore drilling is less than slight, and that the environment is being threatened more by shipping oil on the ocean that it is by drilling for it there.
The Minerals Management Service (MMS), a bureau in the U.S. Department of the Interior, is the Federal agency that manages the nation’s natural gas, oil and other mineral resources on the outer continental shelf (OCS). They say on their website that the record of the last 50 years shows that the offshore industry is one of the safest industrial activities in the US and that in the last 15 years there were zero platform spills greater than 1,000 barrels. Compared to worldwide tanker spill rates, outer continental shelf operations are more than five times safer. Imports present an environmental risk of spills about 13 times greater than domestic production. In fact, annual natural seeps account for 150-175 times more oil in the ocean than OCS oil and gas operations.
The other point I made was that if the price of oil continues to escalate at the record pace it has been, the standard of living of not only the US, but also the entire world would be threatened. It makes no sense to sacrifice quality of life for the majority of us because of the unfounded fears of the minority. The price of gasoline is a contributing factor to food costs increasing at twice the rate than it has in the past two decades. For example, milk increased 26% and eggs jumped 40% in price over the last year. Escalating food costs could present a greater problem than soaring oil prices for the national economy because food accounts for about 13 percent of the average household’s spending. Are you willing to subsist on bread, beans and rice?
My next response challenged hagajim’s making the ridiculous and unfounded statements that he did. Sterling Burnett wrote that it is estimated that there is enough oil offshore to fuel 60 million cars in the United States for 60 years and enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years. That was said to be incorrect by hagajim who said, “…the U.S. doesn’t have that much oil available.” Dr Burnett is a Ph.D. and a Senior Fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) who specializes in issues involving environmental policy. What are hagajim’s credentials? What is the authority that he bases his statement on? I stand by my apolitically correct, but certainly not hostile assertion that hagajim’s statement was ridiculous.
Let’s move on to sunnsea’s diatribe against “fearful, not courageous” and “easily manipulated” Americans “looking for any excuse not to be summoned to their greatness and taking risks but taking the easy way out.” To prove his point he asked three multiple choice questions. In the first question, he provided incorrect and incomplete information, and he withheld critical information in his answer. That is, if he knew the critical information – that 99% of US oil exports is refined petroleum, not crude oil.
The second question and answer again shows that sunnsea is either misinformed or attempting to spread misinformation. If you go to the website that I mentioned names the top 100 holders of federal oil and gas leases, you can see for yourself how many of those “oil companies” names are ones that you recognize. It’s possible that your next door neighbor is one of the “oil companies” because anyone can bid on the leases. If you want to know more about leasing federal land for oil and gas exploration go to http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas0/oil_….
His third Q&A is also incomplete. There are many factors that determine the price of gasoline that consumers pay at the pump, and sunnsea only listed two of them. The two factors that he mentioned didn’t include the #1 reason that is taught in high school economics – supply and demand.
Now that I have hopefully made clearer my reasons for disputing ajm8127’s original comment and hagajim’s and sunnsea’s challenges to my rebuttals, it’s your turn, fishtopher, for me to unload my hostility on. I have read and listened to many political speeches and other commentaries critical of the oil companies for wanting more area to drill for offshore oil, and I don’t recall ever hearing what you say about them having access to all but 18 billion barrels of offshore proven reserves. My first challenge to you is, “Where did you get that information?”
In the next couple of sentences, you said that oil companies weren’t drilling in some leased areas because of their depth. Is that an opinion, or is it a fact that you can cite a reliable source for? Perhaps you aren’t aware of the rig, Noble Clyde Boudreaux, that is drilling three miles below the waters of the Gulf of Mexico’s Alaminos Canyon 24 hours a day, seven days a week that started a year ago last month. The Boudreaux, which is owned and operated by Noble Energy, a Texas-based exploration and production company, is drilling in an area that is estimated to contain 56 billion barrels of oil. You can learn more about this venture at http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machines/….
After slamming the oil companies for supposedly not drilling where it is unprofitable, you go on to deal them another low blow by insinuating that they should be charitable and sacrifice their record profits to increase oil production because they care about the American people. How absurd is that! What other publicly owned business in this country operates like that? How long could any venture stay in business with that attitude?
You are correct that US consumption dropped while world consumption went up; however, in the last week or two, we have seen the price of both oil and gasoline decrease. You say that “simple supply and demand” is what controls price. If that is the case, we should still be seeing price increases, not decreases. There are other factors besides “simple supply and demand” that affect the price of oil. Are prices going down as a result of the US polls that indicate more and more people are in favor of recovering the oil from the OCS and ANWR? I think so, and I agree with the economists who believe the bubble will burst and prices will drop as soon as the moratoria are lifted.
More frankness, not hostility. Tata Motors Limited, the company that owns Land Rover and Jaguar, has introduced a car called Nano. It is touted to be the cheapest car in the world; however, you have been misinformed regarding its cost. The Nano will start at $2,500, not $1,000. You are correct, however, that because of its affordability, the Nano will create more of a demand for oil. That is another very good reason for allowing US companies to recover the available offshore and Arctic oil.
I, too, would like to see T. Boone Pickens sell his natural gas idea to the automakers and consumers. If he does, where do you think the natural gas will come from? That’s right. Much, if not most, of the natural gas used in the US comes from major oil companies drilling it offshore. Trillions of cubic feet of natural gas are still out there. Do you advocate drilling for natural gas offshore but not for crude oil?
There are a couple of things that you wrote that I agree with. One is that we will have alternate fuel choices for our cars and homes in the very near future because of American ingenuity. The problem is that it will take several decades to make the transition. If a car that ran on air was available tomorrow, how long do you think it would take for every auto owner in the country to buy one? Remember, many people are driving cars that have been financed for 60, 72 and 84 months. If MIT’s promising discovery for storing solar power becomes a reality, how long do you think it would take the entire nation to convert to it? We will still have a demand for oil until the transition is completed. What will we do in the meantime if oil climbs to $200 a barrel? $300 or $400?
I also agree with you that we all want the same thing – renewable energy sources. I am as anxious or more so than you to see it come to fruition. I agree also that oil isn’t a long term solution to our energy needs, but we need all we can get to maintain the American way of life until we become independent from it. That’s not hostile, it frank and true.
Posted 08/12/2008 12:30pm with
As an Arizona Republican I am not able to go to my senator to ask these questions. Is the oil crisis another McCain, Bush, Chaney and the Halliburton manufactured crisis? Similar to the search for weapons of mass destruction? I think the justice department should investigate who is behind the sudden raise in oil prices. Who do the traders represent? Texas oil barons? Halliburton? Bush-McCain supporters? Is this Bush, McCain, Chaney payback? With six months to go in the Bush, Chaney, Halliburton administration we suddenly have an oil crisis!
And what is the answer? The opening of off shore drilling all over the nation? Now who would benefit from this, we the people? Not that I do not agree that America should supply her own oil, but we have thousands of unused leased acres of oil land. The timing of this crisis concerns me. I keep wondering if this is another Bush self-serving manufactured crisis.
Posted 08/13/2008 08:13pm with
To kwaayesnama:
No one, two, ten or even hundreds of people could control the world price of any commodity. Remember when the Hunt brothers tried to control the silver market? They had billions of dollars when there were only a handful of billionaires in the world, and they couldn’t corner the market on such a small commodity as silver. How would you expect McCain, Bush, Cheney and Halliburton, who pale in wealth compared to the Hunts of the 70s, to control the price of the biggest commodity in the world? That is absurd!
The answer to who would benefit by recovering every last drop of oil available in the ground in US territories is every citizen of the US. We would benefit by increasing employment; by increasing our national wealth; by increasing the supply of oil, thus decreasing its cost, which would lead to decreasing the cost of most every consumer product and service; and most importantly, by freeing us from relying on some of our enemies to provide us with a most necessary and strategic resource. Leaving a valuable natural resource in the ground doesn’t make any more sense than a farmer leaving his crops in the field.
“The thousands of unused leased acres of oil land” that you refer to isn’t what you might think it is. Not all of the oil leases of public land are held by oil companies, and all of the leases do not necessarily have oil that can be profitably recovered. Many of the leases that you refer to are held by private citizens like you and me, not by an oil company. Check http://wid.ap.org/oilgas/lease_acres.html for a list of the top 100 oil and gas lease holders on federal lands according to the Bureau of Land Management as of March 2004. I doubt that you will recognize more than a dozen names.
If you believe that by making a public land available for oil and gas leases means that oil and/or gas exists on that land, I have a bridge for sale. Neither the government nor the potential leaseholders have any idea if any recoverable oil or gas is there. Why should oil companies spend millions exploring for oil when they already know a vast amount is? That makes as much sense as our digging for gold in your or my back yard.
I don’t know who you think George Bush is that you think he can influence a “self-serving manufactured crisis” that affects the price of the most valuable commodity in the world besides food. You are talking about a lame duck, warmongering, failed president who is if not the most unpopular man in the world, one of the top two or three. He doesn’t even have enough influence to get a bill through the US Congress let alone control the worldwide price of oil.
Get over it, whatever it is. An overwhelming majority of us believe that we should drill oil offshore and in ANWR. Are we all wrong and the few who believe otherwise right? I don’t think so.
Posted 08/18/2008 07:39pm with
Getting more oil how you going to refine it,we need more refiners.