Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Interesting...I can't find a single news report on this story.

I did find a response to the WSJ Opinion piece linked to above.



I'd note that the USA is a BIG exporter of oil exploration technology and equipment. Many of these companies are my companies customers.

-spence

How does this answer Coolbeans question "why can't we invest in our own resources?" and/or let the oil cos. do so (without burdening the U.S. taxpayer)--Anwar and offshore, etc.? If jobs are so important, wouldn't that also create many many jobs and help to keep oil prices from spiking up?

[striperman36]

the price is detached from the supply cost by market speculation.
Look how low natural gas costs have gone, down 54 pct.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by striperman36

the price is detached from the supply cost by market speculation.
Look how low natural gas costs have gone, down 54 pct.

Surely, supply has SOME effect on market speculation. Anyway, the main point was the JOBS. I thought that the underwriting was supposed to be about saving or creating American jobs. Drilling for our own oil resources would, surely create more American jobs.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How does this answer Coolbeans question "why can't we invest in our own resources?" and/or let the oil cos. do so (without burdening the U.S. taxpayer)--Anwar and offshore, etc.? If jobs are so important, wouldn't that also create many many jobs and help to keep oil prices from spiking up?

We do. The government gives large tax breaks for companies to invest in drilling and mitigates the risk of dry wells through write offs. This investment by the taxpayer leads to more oil and more jobs in the supply chain.

The question I think you're after is why doesn't the government allow more drilling in prohibited areas. This is a different question.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

We do. The government gives large tax breaks for companies to invest in drilling and mitigates the risk of dry wells through write offs. This investment by the taxpayer leads to more oil and more jobs in the supply chain.

The question I think you're after is why doesn't the government allow more drilling in prohibited areas. This is a different question.

-spence

So, if the Republicans could get the kind of lock on the Federal government that the Democrats have, the areas wouldn't be prohibited, and we could have more American jobs.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, if the Republicans could get the kind of lock on the Federal government that the Democrats have, the areas wouldn't be prohibited, and we could have more American jobs.

Over the last 8 years, they have.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Over the last 8 years, they have.

No, they have not. They have never had a filibuster-proof senate.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No, they have not. They have never had a filibuster-proof senate.

True, not filibuster proof. But a healthy majority. When they had that majority, why weren't the proposals presented.

Some of this is irrelevant though as much of it is managed through Executive Orders.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

True, not filibuster proof. But a healthy majority. When they had that majority, why weren't the proposals presented.

What healthy majority? The Senate during Bush II was basically 50/50. In mid 2000 the House voted to allow drilling in ANWR. In April 2003 the Democrat controlled Senate rejected it. In 2005, the Republican controlled House included Arctic Refuge drilling as part of the energy bill. That provision was removed by the House-Senate conference committee due to pressure by conservationists and the defection of TWO Republican Senators (one being Lincoln Chafee who is more Dem than Repub). The Republican controlled Senate passed Arctic Refuge drilling on March 2005 as part of the federal budget resolution for 2006, but that was removed during the reconciliation process as Dems in the Hoiuse stated they would oppose any version of the budget that had Arctic Refuge drilling in it. In Dec. 2005, Republican Ted Stevens, Alaska, attached an Arctic Refuge drilling amendment to the defense appropriations bill, but a group of Democrat Senators led a succesful filibuster of the bill and the language was removed.

Some of this is irrelevant though as much of it is managed through Executive Orders.

Bush II removed the executive order that placed a moratorium on offshore drilling, but that cannot override the congressional moratorium.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, if the Republicans could get the kind of lock on the Federal government that the Democrats have, the areas wouldn't be prohibited, and we could have more American jobs.

Yes, assuming the people want the potential trade offs. It's been more than just hard core environmentalists blocking expansion of exploration in US territory.

I think even Jeb Bush has been against drilling off the FL gulf coast up until recently.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, assuming the people want the potential trade offs. It's been more than just hard core environmentalists blocking expansion of exploration in US territory.

I think even Jeb Bush has been against drilling off the FL gulf coast up until recently.

-spence

Yes, there are states who would reject drilling for fear of damage to their tourism revenues. Some could be convinced that drilling can be done in ways to mitigate that fear. Other states don't have that problem. The majority of Alaskans are in favor of ANWR drilling. If individual states reject drilling, fine. But why block it when the citizens are for it?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes, there are states who would reject drilling for fear of damage to their tourism revenues. Some could be convinced that drilling can be done in ways to mitigate that fear. Other states don't have that problem. The majority of Alaskans are in favor of ANWR drilling. If individual states reject drilling, fine. But why block it when the citizens are for it?

ANWR is a good example here as you have legitimate environmental concerns given the unique habitation of that area. Does this mean that it's possible to extract oil without disrupting the ecosystem? Maybe, but at the least making things difficult will ensure every measure is taken to protect a very special place.

It wouldn't surprise me at all that the people of Alaska want to drill in ANWR, they all stand to personally see financial benefits.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

ANWR is a good example here as you have legitimate environmental concerns given the unique habitation of that area. Does this mean that it's possible to extract oil without disrupting the ecosystem? Maybe, but at the least making things difficult will ensure every measure is taken to protect a very special place.

It wouldn't surprise me at all that the people of Alaska want to drill in ANWR, they all stand to personally see financial benefits.

-spence

Financial benefits is the point of drilling ANYWHERE. Alaskans are no different in that respect, nor should that motive be considered negative. The underwriting referred to in this thread was supposed to be about American jobs--financial benefits to Americans. And the financial benefits to those immediately involved in the drilling process, and delivery process, and refining process, and distribution process, and the use of the product, financially benefit the entire American economy. And wasn't that your point about drilling being accepted by various states--if the trade-off was worth it? That different states may or may not accept drilling if the financial benefit was worth the trade-off?

As far as legitimate environmental concerns, ALL drilling evokes "legitimate" environmental concerns. From what I've read, the Caribou don't have that much to fear from well done ANWR drilling. And if ethics and hypocrisy in our face to the world are a concern to you, I would think that the double standard of restricting drilling here because of the environment, while funding drilling elsewhere might well be looked at by the rest of the world as hypocritical.