Democrats To Offer Bill With Plan For More Offshore Drilling

WASHINGTON — Democrats' stance against offshore drilling has shifted more, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaling on Saturday her willingness to consider opening up more coastal areas to oil and gas exploration.

In her party's weekly radio address, Pelosi said opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling would be a part of energy legislation that House Democrats intend to put forward in the coming weeks to address oil dependence and high gasoline prices.

Lawmakers will be able to "consider opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling, with appropriate safeguards, and without taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil," said Pelosi, D-Calif.

Just weeks ago Pelosi seemed resolved to block any votes to allow offshore drilling, in part because Californians have opposed drilling off their coasts since an oil spill off Santa Barbara in 1969. New oil drilling is only allowed now in federal waters in the western Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska.

Pelosi's radio remarks were the latest to hint that the energy debate in Congress is still evolving, and that Democrats are budging on the issue.

Congress left for the August recess deadlocked over how to address $4-a-gallon gasoline. Democratic proposals to tap the nation's petroleum reserve, curb oil speculation and force oil companies to drill on already leased federal lands were blocked by Republicans trying to force votes on offshore drilling.

Yet any vote on drilling is likely to force the Republicans' hand, since it will likely be packaged with unpopular proposals to tap the petroleum reserve and recoup unpaid royalties from the late 1990s to pay for renewable energy projects.

"This comprehensive Democratic approach will ensure energy independence which is essential to our national security, will create millions of good paying jobs here at home in a new green economy, and will take major steps forward in addressing the global climate crisis," said Pelosi, who criticized Republicans' "drill only" plan.

Republican leaders called Pelosi's proposal a ruse.

She "is deliberately misrepresenting the facts about our plan in order to shift attention away from the Democrats' shameful record," said House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio. "Her new effort appears to be just another flawed plan that will do little to lower gas prices." Boehner and more than 100 House Republicans refused to depart for the summer recess in protest of Democrats' refusal to have a vote on their proposals.

The pressure to expand offshore drilling intensified last month when President Bush lifted an executive prohibition on drilling for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. A congressional ban remains in place.

Polls have shown that voters have grown more supportive of more domestic oil production as fuel prices have climbed.

Comments

[3dtrix]

re: My previous - if you want to check if the "drill here, drill now" crowd really means what they say about expanded drilling of OUR (that's as in We The People's) known reserves being a boon for the US, ask 'em if they'd be still be so anxious to drill if there was a blanket restriction of exporting a single drop of it.

Seems only right, right?

Shouldn't be a problem....

[mjt218]

Don't see that this would be too much of a problem for oil companies . . . If it's just a few hundred thousand barrels a day ten to twenty years from now, I'm sure there will be a market for it. The US is the biggest market for petroleum products in the world.

I have not been able to find any evidence that crude oil produced in the United States is exported in great amount to foreign refiners. There are some articles flying around that show refined product exports totaling roughly 1.6MM barrels a year. Clinton actually signed a law while he was President allowing Alaskan oil to be sold outside the country (domestic only ban prior to that). However I can't find good numbers on what we actually export in terms of raw crude. I would be surprised if it was much at all, even though oil is a global commodity. Physical transportation does cost money, when we have ample refining capacity and a big market here.

[Wingit]

Sure they can guarantee all that oil will be kept in the U.S. Now can you get OPEC to guarantee that they will keep their oil production as high as it is today? When that oil production comes on line, OPEC will say "thank you very much, we can now cut our production and keep our supplies longer".

[TxAggie]

The problem is the areas (with the exception of Offshore CA and Destin Dome) do not contain "known" hydrocarbons- we have not been allowed to explore (not even shoot modern seismic to at least have an idea) and don't know what the reserve potential is. The company I work for produces 30 M BBls per day and we don't sell an ounce of it to foreign markets, so yes go on with your banket restriction. By the way- does that include mexico and Canada- we sell refined products to them.

[3dtrix]

Here's how stupid the "drill here, drill now" crowd is - have you heard even one of them acknowledge that when WE drill OUR meager share of the world's oil - which will then be conjoined and mingled with all the other oil on world market - meaning much of it will be exported and lost to us anyway - We won't have any of OUR oil left? We will then be left utterly and permanently dependent on foreign oil. By definition!

Anyone with even half a brain should realize our best long-term strategy is for OUR oil to be the LAST oil on earth to see the inside of a barrel!

Sooner or later, the oil in god-forsaken wastelands will run dry. That's a given. In the mean time, let's be happy to pay the going rate and save ours for when we can sell it to the formerly dripping in oil at a rate that will return every dollar back to us, and then some. Maybe they'll need a little bit off food from the most fertile soil on earth, too.

This isn't rocket science, folks - it's a lot closer to three-card Monte. Don't be conned by the fast-buck artists...

[anastasiabeaverhousen]

And once more, the dems respond to a chess move with a checkers ploy...............

[kevinw]

Gee, another complete capitulation. I wonder if they are going to use the Inspector General reporting for window dressing like they did on the FISA bill. Maybe they have thought up a whole new cover. Maybe Hilary made Pelosi do it. That might work. Our leadership is pathetic.

[Huffingtonposter231]

Carbon Global Warming Religion unraveling as science is speaking against it and as planet starts to chill down.

But how many taxes, how much socialism will the radical left be able to jam down our throats using their fake but politically correct "disaster" before the carbon global disaster HOAX dies a cold cold death?

http://www.politickernj.com/bguhl/22291/doherty-new-scientific-data-justifies-repealing-global-warming-response-act

[957]

Like it or not Oil prices dropped the next day or two after Bush announced removing the executive order pertaining to drilling, congress had not followed suit but Bush's move did it..sent a message to the arabs, like it or not, even if you don't admit it, that's what happened.

[kevinw]

Really, gosh so it was his dropping an executive order that had no effect on drilling whatsoever that dropped the price of oil. It wasn't the control on speculators that had an affect right. Just Bush saying he was doing a symbolic and meaningless gesture. The price of oil by the way is not set by the Arabs, like it or not, it is set by the futures market. All the Arabs can do is try to set production levels which affects the way that the market moves. Even when they decide to do something it does not always affect prices in the way that they would hope.

[Wingit]

Isn't that the same time that they announced the biggest drop in demand for oil in the U.S. in the last twelve years? Could that have had something to do with it?

[apexfork]

Either you support increasing production or you don't.

"Supporting as part of a comprehensive...blah blah blah" is still supporting it.

So why don't they vote on the drilling, and then vote on the other stuff too? It must be because they want to control us by forcing us to accept 'options' that they know we wouldn't otherwise accept.

I'm not saying Repubs are better or worse, I'm just saying that I was told that these games were over if we just elected Dems to power.

[wdw101]

gee, were lies told to you?

[aubrey8]

yeah, who told you the games would be over....you must be new to politics.

try taking a crash course in life, you'll know a few things.

[apexfork]

Yes they were, and no, I didn't *really* expect Pelosi (or any politician) to keep a promise.

It was sarcasm which doesn't always come through on the Internet.

[Wingit]

Supporting a comprehensive approach to our current "oil" problem is not a "game". Every major piece of legislation that comes out of congress is the result of compromise. Only problem is that the Repugs in this case still have that "my way or the highway" mentality.

[apexfork]

Right, but why does it have to be that way?

Answer: So they can control us and make us do things we otherwise wouldn't do if we were, say, free.

If the Dems (now in control) cared one whit about their country, they'd have a vote, tomorrow, to allow drilling (or not, who knows how it'd go). They don't care about the country, they only care about their political power, so they tie something we need (more drilling) to something they want (more wind?).

I support more wind power, and so do many republicans, but don't pretend that one should depend on another. If you do really believe that, I'd love to hear why.

Why not vote on drilling?

[ntf1]

It took me a while to come to this realization, but I believe Pelosi may be building a brilliant move. The key came in the line, "it will likely be packaged with unpopular proposals to tap the petroleum reserve and recoup unpaid royalties from the late 1990s to pay for renewable energy projects."

Republicans may have dug themselves into a hole which they may now regret. Initially, they had the intention of labeling Democrats as being inefficient in lowering gas prices as they would not vote/allow offshore drilling. However, as public opinion begins to shift in favor of drilling, Democrats appear willing or should I say reluctant, for obvious reasons, to adopt this measure. The kicker lies with the eariler quote where Democrats plan on filling the bill with measures unpopular to Republicans. A vote on the speculative bill will be a difficult one for Republicans in that they will want to vote for offshore drilling but against the other measures that fill it. Will Republicans vote against the drilling they once heavily pushed for and have the tide turned against them or will they vote in favor of drilling and consequently the other measures highly unpopular to their constituents?

It appears the Democrats are shifting toward an unpopular measure (one that may have to occur for there to be any vote on matters of energy) but I believe an interesting move is being made by Pelosi to shift the status quo back into her party's favor.

[apexfork]

If by "Brilliant Move" you mean "playing games by muddying the waters on energy issues" then yeah, brilliant.

Vote on drilling. Then vote on mileage standards, then vote on wind, then vote on whatever else.

When you try to 'package' everything into one vote, you end up getting nothing done, or just making matters worse.

Of course that'll never happen because that would undermine the power of congressional committees. And that would, in turn, undermine the power of the political parties.

Thanks for continuing the tradition Nancy. Not really.

[kevinw]

Gosh, just like they did on FISA.

[TxAggie]

Yes Pelosi is making a political move not related to what is the best for the country but rather what is best from a politcal standpoint. Your reference to unpaid royalties in the late 1990's is presumably a referenc to the deepwater royalty relief act where the MMS attempted to circumvent the law and insert price thresholds by rule rather thatn follow the legislation.l This has been litigated and the law was upheld- there are no unpaid royalties.

[thefringecenter]

More of Nancy standing tall.

[AuntSally]

"Polls have shown that voters have grown more supportive of more domestic oil production as fuel prices have climbed."

...because politicians, including the Democratic nominee for President, refuse to disabuse the public of the notion that drilling can help -- instead choosing expediency and pandering to leadership.

[wdw101]

good....... drill more.......i do agree with doing the alternatives......do them all at the same time including drilling

[Wingit]

Yes, the quick and easy solution sounds the best. Now stop and think one step further. After we bring on this 3% increase in production, what will OPEC do? Cut production by that much or more. So will prices go down? No. All we will have accomplished is to have OPEC countries preserve their oil reserves longer. Read the OPEC.org website. Their goal is to preserve their recognized dwindling resource and get the highest possible price for their product. If you can't control about 40% of the world oil supply by drilling, you are wasting money and resources.

[apexfork]

And you know it won't help how? Because some Republicans support it?

Please cite proof detailing how, exactly, gas prices won't drop if we increase production but they will drop if we don't increase production.

...because I don't get it..

[OgreDaddy]

If U.S. Oil Companies are saying we need to drill more American oil to help the American people, then how come EXPORTS of American oil are soaring?

This article show just how deceptive the oil industry has been to the American people.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0325640920080703

[insert]
A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month, according to final numbers from the Energy Department.

The surge in exports appears to contradict the pleas from the U.S. oil industry and the Bush administration for Congress to open more offshore waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

"We can help alleviate shortages by drilling for oil and gas in our own country," President Bush told reporters this week. "We have got the opportunity to find more crude oil here at home."[insert]

[mjt218]

Sorry to burst your bubble OD, but refined product export has absolutely nothing to do with the need for more domestic crude oil. Crude oil is what you get out of the ground. It is transported to a refinery where it is refined into usuable products (note plural).

A barrel of crude oil, cannot be refined into only gasoline. Depending on where you get the oil from, it has many different hydrocarbon components, some of which are good for asphalt, some of which are good for plastics, some which are good for diesel, and some for gasoline. Not all of these products have a market in the US, and not all of the diesel or gasoline will meet US emissions standards for transportation fuel use.

I would be very surprised if any refiners are exporting gasoline grades that meet US emissions standards. Refiners export a few milion barrels of refined products each year, because they most likely don't have a domestic market for them. I would imagine a large portion end up in another country in North America anyway. It's not like they're selling it all to China.

Also, the price increase in gasoline is almost 100% due to the rise in crude oil costs.

[OgreDaddy]

The American oil industry is NOT refining at capacity, nor building new refineries to
actually produce more fuel quality products.

The oil industry and pro-oil industry members of Congress are deliberately twisting the truth attempting to make the Amercian people
swallow their bubblin' crude flavored cool-aid.

All of this is a last ditch effort to keep the American people addicted to oil while modern technology threatens to put them out of business.

Yes, we still need fossil fuels to run transportation for the time being, but only until
more advanced clean technology is allowed to progress.

It is this progression towards clean energy for transportation and for our homes and businesses that has the oil cartels digging in their heels.

You can be assured they will go kicking and screaming,killing, bribing and litigating
to protect their wealth.

Oil and petro dollars have been the primary force behind 36 years of Oil Wars and it needs to stop.

Unfortunately, the energy industry has collectively blocked every attempt by science and modern technology to enable Harry home owner to cut the umbilical cord.

They will stop at nothing to protect their a$$ets.

Affordable, clean energy is their worst nightmare, unless they can figure out how to control distribution to the consumer.

[TxAggie]

FYI- out of a bbl of oil (42 gallons) 19 can be made into gasoline, the rest is refined products.

[bronceye]

What a wonderful notion. We only have 3% of the world's oil reserves so must hurry to use that up and our future will be sealed. To all my grandchildren, I'm sorry that we are myopic and self serving.

[UnbiasView]

How sad . . .

[wdw101]

whatever?

[OgreDaddy]

Funny how some of you label me as a LIBERAL when I am far more CONSERVATIVE about how our government should operate than most people.

The Bush administration has broken the all time record for liberal spending of our national treasure, but pander to the social conservative ideology in deception.
A true FISCAL CONSERVATIVE would demand full transparency and oversight of every last
penny our government spends including the amounts received from every last lobbyist.

The Bush administration believes the American people do not have the right to know
what goes on behind closed doors while claiming to be public servants.
A true Constitutional CONSERVATIVE would DEMAND that our public servants keep open records
to keep the public they serve, fully informed of their government activities.

Regarding Big Oil and Big Energy, you're darn tooting these major industries are doing all they can
to wrap themselves in the American flag, while fleecing the American people for all it's worth.

To think they give a rat's arse about the average American citizen is completely delusional.

The amount of money they spend lobbying Congress and pushing
pro industry propaganda is sinful!

Unfortunately, many good hearted people have been driven to the breaking point
not understanding the reality of the situation or how they are being manipulated.

[LexLuthier]

Hello Democrats

May I have your attention, please????

In 2000, it was about flag burning. In 2004, it was gay marriage. The Republicans always come up with a wedge issue just before an election to make the Democrats look bad to low information voters. Newt Gingrich, the master of political division, came up with this "Drill here, drill now, pay less" slogan. This is probably the one issue more than any other that they are relying on to fire up their base and get them to the polls. I think that it is a very good strategy on the Dem leadership's part, to put offshore drilling on the table. It completely defuses the issue until after the election and takes away one of their main dirty tricks this time around. Please everyone, relax. Of course that's easier if you don't live in FL or CA.

[darylwalmsley]

repost from alvdh1:
"Exxon/Mobil is now spending $30 billion per year to repurchase stock. This trend is not limited to Exxon. Connoco/Phillips, BP, Chevron, to name a few, are all participating in the share repurchase binge. This represents an investment, in Exxon's case, in its stock that exceeds its exploration budget by 100%. Their dividend payments nearly equals their stock repurchase investment. At this rate, Exxon will have repurchased all of their stock by 2024. In an era of high oil prices, why are they not puring every available dollar into exploration? They have no desire to go after expensive offshore oil, but the do want to secure every possible lease for future development hence the drill, drill, drill Republican mantra. Nearly every available offshore drilling rig is in use. The current day rates for these rigs, if they were available, is running about $500,000 - $550,000 up from a year ago of $450,000 - $500,000. Rig rates are rising as fast as the price of oil. There are 28 million acres of offshore leases currently held by the oil companies which they haven't developed. They wont develop them or any of the new leases in areas proposed by Bush anytime soon. They want the ban in these area removed so that they can access them at a future date. Meanwhile they will just keep spending their vast revenues on dividends and stock repruchases."

[wdw101]

ok so

[Wingit]

Maybe they can outsource the rigs to the Chinese and ship the oil to Mexico for refining and then export it to Asian countries and leave the U.S. out of the picture altogether.

[TxAggie]

Every lease in the gom is in one stage of development or the other. Oil companies do not buy leases just to have something to do and I will not go to the trouble to explain the exloration process but assuming you numbers are correct, 70% of the leases are not producing meaning 30% are. Considering the success rate for willcat drilling thourhout the gulf is about 20% having about 1/3rd of the leases in production is about what mother nature provides. As to 70%, every acre was competitiely bid and the leases were awarded by the government and the oil companies have paid bonuses and rentals all along the way.

[montestruc]

Regarding repurchase of stock. One should look at the tax angle, and the fact they have record profits this year. I suspect that they can legally avoid paying taxes on those very large profits by such stock repurchase.

We have a huge boom in offshore rig construction going on right now, day rates are bound to come down.

[salblomo]

Like all other liberals, this Nancy Pelosi is useless. Everyday Americans are fed up with liberals always blaming corporations for their problems. But this is what the left does. It somehow manages to find a way to link all of life's problems to companies who creates products that they just don't happen to agree with. How come we don't hear about "Big Hollywood" or "Big Universities"?

Believe me, when we do finally manage to find alternative fuels we won't hear about "Big Oil" we'll just hear about "Big Hydrogen" or "Big Electric".

[LITU]

Planet earth to Salblomo: corporations, combined with an unsustainable population, ARE the cause of earth's eco-problems. The fact that you don't get it speaks volumes about your intellect or your willingness to face the evidence.

"Big Hydrogen" - a process driven by fossil fuels.

"Big Electric" - (if you mean nuclear) a process involving unresolved waste issues detrimental to ALL life on this planet. And don't cite France. They admittedly don't have an answer either.

[springsm]

Pelosi is a loser, but the progressives are not. Nasty nasty. What I like about the republicans..they can really throw names and insults...that is the depth of them. One inch deep and one mile wide.

[darylwalmsley]

way to support the losing side of history... this is what the right embodies: fear of progress, fear of equality, fear of rights, fear of truth.

p.s. most of life's problems can be blamed on greed and a lack of empathy, two traits at the heart of what it means to be "Right" or conservative in america today.