Should We Be Drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf?
By hofferp
@hofferp (4734)
United States
March 31, 2010 11:44pm CST
The energy policy announcement by President Obama is another example of the President being ambiguous, evasive and misleading. The order will lock up more production areas than it releases.
"Under the Administration's plan a majority of areas that are open are being once again closed, this includes the Pacific Coast, the Northeastern Atlantic and Bristol Bay, Alaska.
"The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) plan announced by the President puts 13.14 billion barrels of oil and 41.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas under lock and key. And the highly touted drilling off the Virginia coast is actually postponed until 2012, thereby discarding a lease sale that was scheduled to take place in 2011.
"Even though the Administration claims drilling is permitted in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, Congressional action will be required before drilling may occur. Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly blocked Congressional action, including when Republicans were in the majority.
"The current Administration is making it impossible to drill for American resources, rather than opening up the OCS. Under the President's announcement, our country will continue to buy oil from nations that wish to do us harm, it prolongs the 10% unemployment rates and gasoline prices will continue to escalate because of the actions or inaction of President Obama and Speaker Pelosi.
I favor creating American jobs and using American energy from the Outer Continental Shelf. We can create jobs and protect our environment simultaneously; we have the obligation to do both. And do you agree or disagree and why?
2 responses
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
1 Apr 10
I won't respond to all of this but I will say that the reason that Nancy has blocked legislation (once during the final years of Bush) was because it tromped on the pacific coastal states rights to control their shores. Pacific coast states have laws in place, voted in by the people, not to allow drilling off their coast and will go ape x--x crazy if the feds step on those laws.
They have a poit in this fact. Drilling has become much safer than it used to be when these states voted in such restritions, with far fewer accidents but when you consider the number of earthquakes and the volatility of the west coast it is not really worth the risk.
There were any number of oil spills in the 60's and 70's that ruined almost every beach in the state of California at one time or another and has permenantly damaged some of the eco system so they are not going to allow drilling any time soon.
It will be years before the drilling happens because of enviromental impact reports and red tape that has to happen, The truth about this is that very few of the oil companies are really interested in drilling off our coast because there is just not enough oil to make it viable investment.
The head of BP told Charlie Rose they would never drill again in Alaska because it is just to expensive for what you get.
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
1 Apr 10
California state's rights are important to Pelosi for drilling on the California shore of the Pacific, but states' rights aren't important in other matters -- like health care. Makes me wonder about that argument. California's in debt up to its ears -- is essentially bankrupt -- but won't take advantage of its natural resources. Makes me not want to help them out with my tax dollars either. Drilling has become much safer and the risks have been reduced. I don't want to see an environmental disaster (anywhere), but I still think drilling is feasible. As demand increases and supplies continue to tighten, the interest in drilling will be there. The price of a gallon of gasoline just isn't right...yet. You're right Environmental Impact Statements take 1.5 years and longer to conduct/complete. That's why we should be conducting them now... Thanks for your comments/thoughts.
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
1 Apr 10
State rights are important but what health care company's in America only do business in one state?
The state of Colorado cannot sue the state of Indiana because it allows the corperate headquarters of an insurance company to do business without any oversite (laws) in that state.
National corperations have to be regulated by the federal government which is why we are in this nightmare. No laws for the big boys seemed like a good idea for 30 years and now we are paying for that concept, a concept I bought in to 30 years ago but I had no idea that those companies would game the entire system with no moral guides and no American ideas of citizenship and responsibility.
Making money and capitalism is a right in this country but when did we decide that none of the rules apply if you are over a certain size company.
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
3 Apr 10
I don't think we disagree a bunch. I'm with you to an extent. I'm still not for "regulation", as such, but I am for keen oversight of the free market system by the Federal Government to ensure the big boys are playing by the rules. I'm as opposed to big government as I am "too-big-to-fails".
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
1 Apr 10
With world wide demand on the rise he is restricting our ability to drill for new oil supplies and at the same time giving the not so friendly countries more of the oil money.
What we need is to open the drill so that we can produce our own energy and provide jobs for Americans. Somehow this president does not see things that way. He thinks that only government can provide jobs for the people.
