Anyone got any facts on Obama's drill policy?

United States
April 1, 2010 6:26pm CST
I am trying to see what exactly it says. The govnors of both SC and NC have come out against it. They are stating that according to Obama's proposal the feds would get most of the money off the drilling and not the states. They feel the feds are going to get the benefits of their state's natural resources and not them.Which does sound unfair. Both states are hurting big time and need the money. The resources belong to the states...not the feds. Anyone know more about this?
5 responses
@coffeebreak (17824)
• United States
1 Apr 10
I think it is a rouse. First, his approval rate has drastically fallen since this Health care fiasco - where US citizens HAVE to buy health insurance and if they don't, the Govt will fine them 2.5% of their income. That will most likely be done on tax returns every year. Second, because of this health care fiasco... he has lost alot of support from most republicians and alot of democrates so he has to do something to one, try to get support back and two, do something to calm the american people down so as to try to win a second term....so he approves a republican request for off shore drilling. What does it do? One, a new venture that sounds good and could put people to work and make Rep and Dems happy is a sure fire way to distract EVERYONE from correcting this fiasco of a health care bill he put into effect. AND it is a way to get people to like him again and hopefully vote him a second term. That's all it is. Starting to drill takes a long time. I know. My husband has been in that business. If it all goes according to his plan...everyone will stll think lots of work is coming, gas prices will fall... great, let's vote him back in. And if that happens and he gets a second term... all he has to do is an Executive Order to stop it all and he gets 4 more years and we suffer the consequences!
• United States
1 Apr 10
Oh I think he is going to have a hard time getting re-elected. A lot of this country now has "buyers remorse" when it comes to him. But from what I am hearing...even when they do drill out here...most of the profits and benefits off it would go to the feds and not the states.
@coffeebreak (17824)
• United States
2 Apr 10
Well they specifically only stated Alaska, Gulf of mexico and Atlantic ocean areas.... they didn't say a single mention of California/west coast drilling. But this state is such a mess...they have recently held up a HUGE solar/electrical power plant start up out in the desert because some goof balls say there are some desert turtles out there (somewhere) and if that power plant is built it will destroy their homes and habitat. Fine, let the state do without power so a few turtles can live in comfort! Nothing against animals or anything, but come on...just have these that think it is a problem patrol the area and as they find the turtles, pick them and move them! And these same folks will be the first to b*tch and complain when the state raises power rates and has huge black outs cause there isn't enough power/electric to accomodate all the people!
@coffeebreak (17824)
• United States
2 Apr 10
And of course the feds will get most of them money..don't they always in anything that is ever done!?!?!? He just doesn't want to tell us that part!
@anniepa (26606)
• United States
2 Apr 10
I don't know if those kinds of details are available yet. I must say, it's no surprise that the governor of SC has come out against it, he'd come out against it if the President said the sky it blue...lol! Anyway, I don't know if there has been any discussion of who gets the money, if there's any to be gotten. I thought it was supposed to be about our dependency on foreign oil and trying to keep gas prices lower here. Personally, I think President Obama was just trying, I'm sure in vain once again, top appease the Republicans by agreeing to some off-shore oil drilling in the hopes they'll go along with some of his proposals in the climate bill. I think the only sure benefit would be that it would create jobs but other than that I don't think it will be more than a drop in the bucket - or in this case the barrel - when it comes to our oil supply. I've heard it will take years for us to actually be able to use that oil and when we do it will amount to about a two week supply going by our current consumption. Annie
• United States
2 Apr 10
Sanford is all for drilling....but only if the state gets to keep the royalities from it. Instead of giving that money to the feds. Needless to say this state needs the money of it badly. It would take years before they had it up and running. But I think they should go ahead and start on it. The sooner they start...the sooner we get the oil off of it. Not ot mention the jobs. My state is alittle over 12% unemployement right now.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
2 Apr 10
From what I understand is that he approved exploring for oil and gas not drilling and producing. If they find oil or gas then the Federal Government would put the sections up for lease and companies could then drill for oil. These leases are sold with the government getting the money. I think what the states ar objecting to is that they can not drill and there fore the state gets no royalties from the gas or oil produced. He is not allowing new drilling in Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Florida, Off the West Coast or the Alaskan Coast all of which have proven reserves of Gas and Oil. He talked about the jobs that would be created but exploring requires relatively few workers compared to the number that would be required ot build a refinery, or to build a drilling rig and drill for oil. What he did was a political move to try to sway the moderates to support him with out angering his base too much.
@irishidid (8119)
• United States
2 Apr 10
I don't trust him to do the right thing. He hasn't yet and I don't see him starting anytime soon. This is a trick, pure and simple. I trust him about as far as I could throw an oil rig.
@gewcew23 (8012)
• United States
2 Apr 10
Here is a link to the Wall Street Journal's new store about Obama's plan, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304739104575153922665431994.html The question I have is the offshore property of the States? The land yes definitely, but offshore I would assume is under the control of the federal government. Of course if there was no federal government the offshore waters would be under the control of each state. My point is section 8 article 1 give the power of dealing with pirates to Congress. Now I know this is a stretch but if the off shores belonged to the states then the states would have be responsible for pirate of their shores.