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

[tompoe]

It's time for Pelosi to go. Oil independence does not mean expanding oil exploration.

[UnbiasView]

Exactly the short sided thinking that makes you look uniformed . . .

Oil isn't ever going away and we will need it in 20, 30 and 50 years . . . if we don't need it as much great, we can sell it to others to help offset our trade deficit. Unless you think you are getting rid of anything plastic anytime soon (TV, computers, toothbrush, almost everything you own) then saying we won't need oil is foolish.

BTW, estimates on cycling out our entire car supply would taks 15-20 years assuming we had a solution today.

[scooperss]

"Oil isn't ever going away"

There's an unending supply in the Earth ? Well now, that does make a big difference. For some reason I didn't see oil as limitless. Glad you shone the light on that there problem for me. We should never , never look for another alternative. We should drill holes everywhere. In fact, everyone on the planet should be able to get a license to drill in their front, back and side yards.

[LongBeachDave]

Whose estimates? It is so easy on these blogs to just pull "facts" out of your ass. I've seen estimates that say it can be done with electric cars in 5-10 years. http://www.alternet.org/environment/93609/electric_cars_are_the_key_to_energy_independence/

No one ever said we would never again need oil. But we need to begin now...we should have been doing this for the past 8 years....to find alternatives to oil and solutions other than "lets drill everywhere" and "lets go to war to secure oil supplies."

[DesertLight]

Right because you most often don't find what you are not looking for.

[mag64]

I have to give it to the dems. This maybe the smartest political chess game I have seen. This backs the Republicans and especially McCain into a corner. It takes any ground they were gaining from the drill, drill, drill stupidity off the table.

McCain does not want to increase taxes (windfall) on the big oil companies. But if he wants drilling, he will have to agree to the comprehensive energy plan being packaged in this bill.

If the Republicans so no to the (compromise of the gang of 10) then they lose the bipartisan claim, the energy independence game, and will take a hit on the nationally (not much but some) game.


Now they will look completely silly after all the yell staging, stomping their feet and holding their feet, publicity stunt on the hill if they do not go along with compromise.

[UnbiasView]

Explain again why this is smart? People know how Liberals feel about drilling and limited drilling will be of no use . . . guess who will get the blame?

[mag64]

John McCain....will be blamed. If he gives in, he loses a talking point, if he fights it he loses a talking point.

Game over.

He has nothing left to run on.....:-)

[DesertLight]

Whah! But, I put air in my tires. That didn't work?

[AdLib]

Just ran a hose from your head?

[DesertLight]

LOL. It was only 15Ppsi.

[crablover]

I drive only when I have to. I group my errands and drive the most efficient routes. I check my tire pressure every week. I drive the speed limit. I avoid jack-rabbit starts and coast to red lights. The mileage of my 2003 Subaru Forester (4-cylinder) has gone from 20/24 mpg to 25/30 mpg.
I know that doesn't seem like much, but if everyone did these simple things, we'd save millions of barrels of oil.

It's called personal responsibility. Get with the program!

[DesertLight]

Perhaps that visit they gave Pel0si to the local mortuary to pick out a tombstone was the clincher.

[nicholasclaxton]

Seriously - whats wrong with the millions of acres already leased...OH wait the oil lobby wants a monoply! nevermind

[UnbiasView]

Since you are so educated on Pelosi talking points . . . please show me a link that all the land they have has a significant amount of oil on it and that it isn't in production. Also, please show me the proof that the land isn't in production currently. A permit to explore is different than a permit to drill and a permit to extract the oil . . . getting these three things can take 10-15 years with all the red tape.

If you can't answer these questions, your leaders have left you hanging looking like a fool.

[Rick K]

Unbias - I'm an O supporter who's not as down on Pelosi as most, but I'm not so far from you. Trying to "explore" for common ground, let me try this out:

- I do strategic technology planning for a living, and every strat plan I do has a mixture of tactical and strategic alternatives, and there's ALWAYS negotiations involved.
- Business sponsors, always want the most tactical investments that benefit their group or business unit - left unchecked, they would (and have) piled what we call "hacks" (short term solution that's not really great in the strategic framework)
- We know from much experience, that if we slant multiple strat plans toward hack after hack, we make no large grain progress as a company.

So....what ends up being the most productive method, is to lay out a strategic framework with high-level goals and then put together a package of investments that gives us both short and proven benefits, and step-wise progress towards strategic goals.

[Rick K]

This has ALWAYS been how I perceived O's approach (perhaps I was giving him too much credit; what to you think?), and Pelosi was in the situation where:

- she was running interference for O
- her constituency was directly against the larger group of Stakeholders (her "business unit" did not approve of the specific tactical element)

So...my take on how this SHOULD get resolved, is that a leader emerge who can broker a sensible mix and put the "business unit leads" in a position to explain the trade-off process and the specific trade-offs made - in this case, Pelosi or someone in her position might even vote against something she knows is going to pass because that's what her constituents want her to do.

One last thing - the temptation to throw this process out the window and accept tiny tactical "quick wins" is great, and sometimes necessary - but as a way of doing business, it's very dangerous, because it's very easy to end up with a huge pile of unrelated tactical moves that really leads nowhere and can even complicate the progress toward a multi-step goal. It's also very easy to manipulate such a process for on powerful business unit because, one-by-one, the "next quick win" will always seem great in isolation, but, like a chess match, the game requires evaluating multiple moves working together.

What say ye?

[Rick K]

All - I wrote a long post - split it up in two - and it looks like it's been approved out of order, the post starting with "This has ALWAYS..." is the second of the two.

[BradPittsburgh]

another one falls in line with mac.

[barackobama4prez]

Dang! I was hoping she wouldn't cave. We saw gas prices drop without drilling. Make them use the leases they already have first!

[johnie2xs]

Are you kidding? War appropriations!, FISA!, Mukasey!, See a pattern yet??

[barackobama4prez]

yeah.. a pattern of wimping out against the rethugs.

[markand]

Pelosi has no backbone, and no morals. She governs by popular opinion, and thus she retains corporate backing, and maintains the status quo. Sad, isn't it: our leaders don't give a damn about us.
Isn't it time to start fighting back, and start tearing down the walls?

[UnbiasView]

You saw the gas prices drop for a month, I don't think celebrating $3.75 cent gas is something many are going to do.

If you don't add to supply, this will happen again.

[barackobama4prez]

whatever. adding to the supply won't come for another 7 years.

[Rick K]

BTW, on this point, I heard Lou Dobbs say something like, 'gas prices have fallen for the 23rd straight day since George Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling' - which I personally think is the wrong cause-and-effect conclusion.

Americans are driving less (12 billion miles less) resulting in concern about demand. There's obviously no way to know the relative contributions of these two factors, but I think that conclusion is an oversimplification.

I rather saw it as a validation that anything we do to affect demand will immediately and significantly impact price.

That is not a "don't do anything about supply" plea, mind you - as in my earlier posts, my hope is for a plan that lays out short and long term steps, certain and riskier investments, mixed in a way that we can all see, touch and feel, and that can be adjusted as the plan is executed and reviewed each year.

[DesertLight]

You don't seem to understand that the greenies keep the permits on the current leases in litigation for extended periods of time. Yeah, using current leases would be great. Call off the dogs.

[barackobama4prez]

i don't know much about that. i just wish she would stand her ground with these repugs. they created this crisis with their oil men and speculators and want to get more oil spilled along the coasts.....we should take it from the reserves and get it into supply BEFORE 2015.