Will The "Drill, Baby, Drill" Temper Tantrum Shut Down Our Government?

The conservative delegates in St. Paul did not chant, "All of the Above." They chanted, "Drill, Baby, Drill."

So much has coastal drilling gotten conservatives foaming at the mouth, that they're barely bothering with the pretense that they believe in a comprehensive energy policy.

While conservatives continue their extended temper tantrum, the current ban on most coastal drilling expires September 30th, putting pressure on congressional leaders.

With Congress back in session, congressional leaders are planning to put compromise packages on the floor. As I explained last month, the basic approach would allow for some additional drilling while also repealing tax breaks and sweetheart royalty deals for Big Oil, and channeling the revenue into generating clean energy. CQ (sub. req'd) reported yesterday on the planned strategy:

[House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] has said she will schedule a vote soon on a comprehensive energy package that includes some new drilling with environmental safeguards.

This strategy is expected to proceed on two parallel tracks. Congress will consider standalone energy legislation aimed at resolving the issue. And separately, leaders will decide whether to extend the expiring moratorium.

Democrats say they hope Republicans will feel the need to join in a proposal to link limited offshore drilling with efforts to promote renewable energy. If Republicans do accept that plan, then Democratic leaders could add language reflecting the agreement to a stopgap continuing resolution that is planned to finance government programs until early next year. Lawmakers are aiming to pass a continuing resolution this fall because they don't intend to finish the coming year's regular spending bills before the November elections.

Story continues below

advertisement

If the two parties cannot reach agreement, however, then some Democrats predict their party will extend the drilling ban for another year, without opening up any new areas, as part of the continuing resolution.

...

The Pelosi package is likely to place a long list of protective restrictions on new exploration, such as buffer zones that would bar drilling close to shore and requirements that state officials first agree. Her package would probably also strip oil and gas companies of about $18 billion in tax benefits they currently receive. And she would make oil companies pay the government royalties that have been in dispute and force them to use cash to pay royalties on leases rather than using oil swaps.

In exchange, the measure would be designed to win support from environmental activists by setting aside billions of dollars over the next decade to be invested in alternative fuels and to subsidize mass transit, while requiring utilities to produce a certain amount of electricity from renewable fuels. A key ally of environmentalists, Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., would also like to encourage green building design and accelerate implementation of tougher vehicle fuel economy standards.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has promised a vote, probably the week after a Sept. 12 energy summit, on a bill put together by a group of 16 senators that would increase spending on renewable energy sources while opening areas, including the eastern Gulf of Mexico, to more drilling. That plan would lift the ban beyond a buffer zone.

What's the response to this attempt at compromise among some leading congressional conservatives? Shut down our entire federal government!

No, I'm not kidding.

Because conservative leaders are so deep in the pocket of Big Oil, they are vehemently against any compromise that doesn't give Big Oil everything it wants.

Presuming Senate conservatives are able to filibuster any compromise energy package, they could then try to throttle the "stopgap" financing bill that would renew the current ban along with funding the operations of our federal government -- either by filibuster or by sustaining a possible presidential veto.

A second CQ report notes that there are more rumblings about a shutdown among House conservatives than Senate conservatives, suggesting some awareness that the tenuous public support for coastal drilling has its limits.

But the differing reactions indicate that conservatives are struggling to deal with their own success.

Conservatives got a lot of mileage by couching coastal drilling as part of an "All of the Above" approach. Problem for them is, they don't actually believe in "All of the Above." They believe in "Drill, Baby, Drill." Listen to the chants.

Conservatives believe in propping up Big Oil with our tax dollars, shielding oil companies (and oil-soaked dictators) from having to compete with clean energy, and denying us affordable energy choices.

But because of the conservatives' effective summer propaganda campaign -- which falsely claimed coastal drilling would lower gas prices -- they moved the congressional leadership.

Now, conservatives are going to be faced with an "all of the above" bill that, despite the additional drilling, makes Big Oil mad. (For more detail, check out Climate Progress which has been digging in to the compromise.)

Conservatives will be put on the spot before September 30: compromise for the public interest, or continue the temper tantrum for Big Oil's interest.

Originally posted at OurFuture.org

Comments

[research]

Let them shut it down, while the dems do press releases about the obstructionist GOP and the simple fact that even though the oil companies don't need it and can't use it, the dems have offered more land to get the rest of the bill passed.

Americans mostly do not understand why the dems have gotten so little done, this would go a long way to explaining it.

[TXOBAMAGIRL73]

I can remember as a child walking on a oil soaked beach, you see I live in Galveston Island, Texas. Oil platforms can be seen from the beach...I remember a oil spill that turned the beaches of this Island as black as night . Fish, shrimp and crabs dying, so was the industries that run this little island which is tourisms. When they say drill baby drill, it can happen at anytime !!

http://www.incidentnews.gov/attachments/6748/517526/IMG0020_thumb200.jpg

[Beka13]

Does anyone else think this crazy phrase "DRILL BABY DRILL" is a totally inapproriate thing for the Pro-Life Crowd to chant?

[BVA]

Invent baby, Invent!

[Sundialsvc4]

Hmmm...

The United States Constitution actually defines only two "high crimes" by name: treason, and bribery.

If "Congressional leaders are in the pocket of 'big oil' and doing their will," as is so-obviously the case, is that not "bribery?"

For that matter, if we have billion-dollar "campaign" war-chests being effortlessly accumulated by sitting United States Senators (pick a color, any color...) is THAT, TOO, not "bribery?"

[Beka13]

Sounds like a party! Maybe if they invited all of use we wouldnt be so angry?

[mamacat]

Can offshore drilling be done safely today, with the newer technologies and with strict safety rules adhered to? Probably. But should it be?

Why not put it up to the voters in each state, and let them decide? If it passes with 2/3rds of the vote in California, then let's get out our tinker toys and get to work.

But, drilling offshore isn't going to solve any of our problems. If, on the other hand, we start work on an Energy Restructuring that revolutionises how we get our energy, then we will solve our energy needs, create good jobs, and help to reduce our environmental problems.

McCain's chanting of "drill, baby, drill" will do nothing to solve our energy problems, even if all of the low hanging fruit offshore is made available to Big Oil tomorrow.

[BVA]

Invent baby, Invent!

[TxAggie]

Can it be? Yes it is done every day on every rig at work.

Drilling isn't going to solve ANY of our problems? How about our trade deficit, can we not improve on that? How about increasing the revenues to the Fed government through increase royalty revenue? How about increased jobs and the resulting economic impact on the economy? This is not solving any of "our'" problems? It certainly will solve problems for lots of folks if not you.

[Stanley]

Free markets determined the lack of offshore drilling and nuclear development. They aren't cost efficient. Drilling where there is lots of oil is the game. Political instability and carbon emissions are the uncalculated costs which we need to add to any energy source and then let the markets drive capital to the most cost effective resource. The answer is encouraging development of domestic resources and to create jobs but that should be driven by accurate costs attached to all forms of energy foreign or domestic. If oil from the middle east comes in, it should help pay for the Iraq war and also the pollution it causes. If we account for all the real hidden costs, we will have real solutions not more pandering or lobbyist favors. Big or small companies should make little difference. We should not subsidize the energy producers and also let them off the hook on the real cost of that energy. That way we lose twice. Clean energy that does not cause political instability and provides domestic jobs will begin to be favored by the markets and supported with capital development. We don't need to have government get into the energy business, just level the playing field.

[UnbiasView]

I have never understood this argument against drilling. If you want to say I don't want to drill because of global warming, just say it don't come up with BS talking points like . . . It'll take 10 years . . . so what, we'll need oil in 10 years and so will CAFE standards. Unless you plan on finding some magic fuel and a replacement for plastic, we need oil

Take your head out of your butts DC and get something done. Get more oil, extend the tax credits for wind and solar, fund new projects.

At this point we need to continue to keep up with the proven fuels and throw a bunch of unproven ones at the wall to see what sticks.

[KillTheMessenger]

We don't need oil. We need people who are willing to drive cars that make sense and are not manhood extenders. We need people who think with their frontal lobes. Those are rare in this country, though.

[BBackSoon]

If simply keeping our tires fully aired up will save as much oil as off shore drilling would produce, then convincing people to get rid of the 9 " 15 mpg SUV"s and non-working pick up trucks that are mainly used for commuting, think of how much oil we could save! And now that you mentioned plastics, why does almost everything we buy especially little items need to be packaged in blister packs or those hermetically sealed packages that you need tin snips to open?

Conservation by our gluttonous culture would save more oil than we could ever hope to produce.

Hat tip to KillTheMessenger.

[TxAggie]

Loud Clap!!!! bravo

[bilco5]

Drill Drill Drill -- Does Florida really understand what that means? Isn't Tourism the number one industry in Florida. Here is a close look at what Drill Drill Drill will mean to west Florida.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvNgjTOFhv4

[mjt218]

Unfortunately, the shallow water production platforms aren't nearly as attractive or physically impressive as the structures pictured in the video. The jack-up drilling rigs used in shallow waters are even worse.

However, I think most proposals call for 50 or even 150 mile buffers at the moment. Some of the first facilities would likely be entirely subsea (below the water line in 1000's of ft of water) tied back to existing facilities off Alabama.

[TxAggie]

Line of sight is 26 miles, beyond that you can't see the platforms on the clearest of days. I disagree that shallow water platforms and jackups aren't impressive- they are marvels of modern technology and lots of oil and natural gas is produced in the shallow waters...but your heart and head are in the right place.

[INDmind]

I think the temper tantrum argument went out the window with BO supporters yelling and screaming "there is no way we will vote Hillary because she voted for the war" only to turn around and suddenly support Biden!

[helinel]

Just watched T Booone Pickens on the Lou Dobbs show. Inessence he debunked the "Drill Baby, Drill" mantra of McCain as well as Dobbs himself. He basically confirmed Obama's premise that the the US could be energy self reliant in 10 years, by saying that in 5 years, ALL of the heavy transport could be run on Natural Gas and in addition there could be 20% wind generated power.
Of course Dobbs just brushed over it....

[NL207]

And of course, you swallow this fantasy story hook, line, and sinker.

[MajorKong]

But our 2% of the world's oil reserves is somehow going to make us energy independent?

[BVA]

Invent baby, Invent!

[optech007]

Does anyone know if a government shutdown would stop the election?

[SamEllison]

No it will not stop the election but it will put a lot of unpaid gov'ment workers on the street, with their weapons, the vote.

I know, the first rule is do no harm, let them shutdown ; D

[Yermammy]

Even if it were true (and it isn't), what refinery are you gonna take that crude oil too? You know, where they convert that sludge into something useable? Fantasyland. I don't know what is the most oxymoronic- a hermitage (where multiple hermits live) or a low to middle class Republican (that get absolutely no benefit for being one). Imbeciles.
Good article, Bill. I look forward to your work.

[KillTheMessenger]

We have plenty of refinery capacity. Utilization is lowest in years and soon they will start shutting down old facilities. Not sure where the refinery myth comes from but it seems to be perpetuated for some reason... or people just don't care to Google the facts.

[Grunty1]

Here is the deal I want to see:, if a deal must be made:

If you want to drill more, you will be REQUIRED to built additional refinaries.

[michiganfan]

Dude, we have more than enough refining capacity. The refinery shortage is another myth the Repugs created to con the taxpayers into funding new facilities for the oil companies, who would then likely shut down their old facilities, leaving capacity right where it is. (Except the oil companies would have brand-new, shiny, refineries paid for by the American public.)

[mjt218]

I personally think the refinery myth is a misunderstanding that has been perpetuated by folks on the left to further paint the oil industry as a conspiratorial force of some kind. I've never heard anyone on the right bring it up as an issue. Our refining capacity has continuously expanded in step with demand through upgrades to existing facilities.

I'm not sure how taxpayers would pay for new facilities?

[novmoonstars]

More refinaries and everyone loses their oil leases if they don't drill and spend their outrageaous profits on drilling.

[tbone99]

GOP Lovetalk

Schill,, baby, schill - wine and roses from my lobbyist - because they love me

Kill, baby, kill - dead Iraqi bodies , collateral damage for no bid profits

Drill, baby, drill How deep and wide can we go on untouched Alaskan land

The only thing that gets them hard : blood, oil and money

[BVA]

Invent baby, Invent!

[Willz]

The Energy Doggie In the Window

How much is that doggie in the window?...

...the one with the * waggedy tail*?....
Lets talk about energy...
Everybody and his little brother and sister wants to hear that some masked man (or woman) is gonna swoop in and save the day by making energy cheaper. I dont want to damage anyone's hopes, dreams or illusions....so let me just say - yeah its possible -- anything's possible. But there's an old saying - "...if you dont know where you're going...any road will get you there"
We have some serious choices to make folks...I'm a scientist and i have yet to see a plan that puts an approxiamate price on a gallon of gas or one that has provided data indicating the results of study that showed how much we'd be paying for that doggie...whether its a low-oil-demand doggie, a natural gas-doggie, a nuclear-doggie, or a windmill-doggie...and how soon will this doggie be available? If it meets the crieterion of a waggedy tail (clean, low cost, potentially renewable), Its cool
If your politician of choice tells you that they're going to do something to lower your energy cost - ask about the doggies in the window...if their solution is a doggie of mixed pedigree, then they should be able to tell you about the pedigree of the doggie (e.g., 1-part off-shore oil doggie, 2-parts nuclear doggie, etc) --- otherwise its just a mutt..

[KillTheMessenger]

Willz, prices are not calculated by the scientific method. They are the outcome of a dynamic game of one desperation (to have the goods) and another desperation (to make a profit, any profit at all). Which side is more desperate depends on how much stuff is in play. If it's a lot, the buyer usually wins and its slim pickings for the seller. If it's too little, the seller can get away with almost anything.

If you want to put a realistic price on oil, you can go with the approximation "1 barrel = 1000kWhe". So if you have 2cents/kWh hydropower, the barrel shouldn't cost more than $20. But if you need to generate the marginal kWh with 30 cents/kWh residential solar, something closer to $300/barrel is realistic. The truth is somewhere inbetween. If you are willing to pay $200/barrel, you are probably more desperate than you need to be. If you have to pay less than $100, the seller is making a poor deal.

[research]

Look at last years installed wind versus solar, for instance. That wind energy costs less per KHW than Nukes. See my profile for links and details.

NanoSolar and other thin film printing press made solar cells are also cheaper than nukes.

As to nukes, we are threatening to nuke Iran over their legal reprocessing of uranium and you want to add more nukes power to the world? Uranium is already mostly imported and reserves are only 85 years at current use, 13 if the whole world goes nukes. A million years of deadly waste, billions of fish killed per year per power plant, bomb making technology more and more widespread.

And wind and solar a cheaper and the fuel is free. Rooftop solar reduced grid load.

Plug in Hybrids can replace 90% of our oil fuel use, and natural gas can take up the slack.

Be a scientist, research it.

[NL207]

"Plug in Hybrids can replace 90% of our oil fuel use"

This is difficult to do when only 2/3 of US oil usage is for transportation.

"In the United States, oil is primarily used for transportation - roughly two-thirds of all oil use, in fact."
source: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Same old Research, another post, another falsehood.