Bush Drilling Proposal is a Hoax Unworthy of Serious Debate

The president knows, as his own administration has stated, that the impact of any new drilling will be insignificant -- promising savings of only pennies per gallon many years down the road. Americans know that thanks to the two oilmen in the White House, consumers are now paying $4 a gallon for gas. But what Americans should realize is that what the president is calling for is drilling as close as three miles off of America's pristine beaches and in other protected areas.

The president has failed in his economic policy, and now he wants to say, 'but for drilling in protected areas offshore, our economy would be thriving and the price of gas would be lower.' That hoax is unworthy of the serious debate we must have to relieve the pain of consumers at the pump and to promote energy independence.

Today, the New Direction Congress will vote on legislation to bring down gas prices by taking crucial steps to curb excessive speculation in the energy futures market. The president himself could lower prices by drawing down a small portion of our government oil stockpile, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The New Direction Congress will continue to bring forth responsible proposals to increase supply, reduce prices, protect consumers, and transition America to a clean, renewable energy independent future.

This post was first published on the Speaker's blog, The Gavel.

Comments

[samuelpablo]

You owe it to America to support the process of impeachment, until then all I hear is you blathering the same BS as everyone else.... blather, blather, blather. Huzzah!

[disenfranchised]

Spkr. Pelosi- I watched an interview you gave with one of the talking heads this morning, and I thought your final response with regards to this oil drilling hoax was right on the mark. Now more than ever we need leadership to guide the public to make decisions that are good for the people, not just good for large corporations. Please keep on reiterating this message to the public.

[texfly]

Right on Ms Pelosi. BUT .. you and the Democratic party have to come up with a plan to feed the great American appetitie for cheap plentiful energy. If you want one, call me!

[BottomLine2008]

Offshore drilling is Republican hoax.

Plain and simple.

Designed to fool voters who don't the facts with the help of a compliant media.

[TomBrentwood]

We will not end this crises until we have solar panels on all roof tops which will eliminate oil imports.
You could plug in your car at home or any business. End of story.

[1will]

The story doesn't end until you figure out how to produce the added electricity needed to charge all of these cars.

[ramper]

Yea! And we can place those panels on the wings of all aircraft, and the trucks that keep the nation supplied with almost everything can have larger plugs. That will do it.

[ramper]

How many cars are fueled each day from oil extracted from offshore drilling now? A hoax? Not quite! So it is better to allow other countries to do the drilling? Don't look now but the Chinese in concert with Cuba is about 70miles off the coast of Florida slant drilling. Plain and simple!

[RedKnuckles]

Where the hoax comes in is where the oil companies already have vast leases to drill in offshore sites, Alaska and elsewhere, and are not doing it. The hoax, or rather the oil company ploy, is to pretend no one pays attention to the existing leases and allows them to secure even more leases to add to these and further consolidate their holdings.

[1will]

The Chinese are drilling test wells for the Cuban government. Someone will eventually bring that up so I thought I'd beat them to it. Of course test wells will eventually lead to oil producing wells but I guess that doesn't count.

[Quinty]

So when will some investigative reporters tell us why the Republicans are focusing on ANWR and offshore drilling? Because:

a: it may take ten years for any tangible results to arrive.

b: when they do arrive, the savings will only be only miniscule to the consumer.

c: and perhaps most importantly of all, we should be off of oil by then - in ten years. And we should be relying by then on clean and renewable energy resources.

Shouldn't the debate be focussed on how to get to clean, sensible, renewable energy resources as soon as possible rather than on whether to ratchet up one of the major causes of today's problems?

So why are the Republicans treating this issue as if it were a holy war? What's in it for them? For even regarding the profit motive Big Oil and all the politicians Big Oil owns won't see the benefits for many years to come. And, hopefully, by then we will be on another track. If not, well..... we have an idea of the consequences.

[UnbiasView]

A. Prices are set by speculators in a futures market

B. Maybe, maybe not. Saying it will just do a little is a pointless argument because every little bit helps

C. Off of oil in 10 years? What magical fuel will be using in our cars and how long do you think it will take to turn over the every car in the US population? 10 years off of oil, you're are dreaming buddy . . . maybe 50 is a decent estimate.

Oil is going to be needed, it is basically in damn near everything you own . . . you think we won't have plastic, air conditioners, computers, paint, etc. in 10 years?

http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/mainpages/oilproducts.html

[shaneolagranola]

There is so much talk about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore right now that it's hard to remember how we got ourselves into this mess. Yes, supply is dwindling. Yes, demand is going up. But the dollar's weakness is the biggest reason for gas approaching $5 a gallon. Were the dollar as strong today as it was 10 years ago, $140 would buy us closer to two barrels of oil.

The rest of the world is feeling the pain, too. But we are feeling twice the pain with our weak dollar and gas guzzlers. Low interest rates did not just destroy our housing and banking industry, it destroyed our currency. So instead of drilling offshore and hurting the tourism industry, let's look for long-term solutions.

Were Congress to announce a windfall tax on oil, investment (speculation) would flee from oil. Prices would come back down to reality. Besides, at this point in the bust and boom cycle, one's money would perform better if invested in alternative energy. Exxon is a foolish investment suited for the 20th century. We need to be thinking 21st century.

Instead of treating our sewage and letting it flow into the ocean, we could be turning it into gas using algae. We could also turn every dump into a fuel refinery using garbage. Sure beats turning our food into fuel! It's time to send the market a signal. Congress, Mr. President, we're waiting.

[UnbiasView]

"So instead of drilling offshore and hurting the tourism industry, let's look for long-term solutions"

Agree, but you do know if we drill 50 miles off shore, you won't be able to see the oil rigg?

The thing that bugs me is people like Pelosi believe that oil won't be a part of the ultimate solution and the long transition we are moving towards.

[edva]

Well, a pox on both your houses, for the lousy job our government has done for us, but you are right about not opening sensitive and pristine areas to more drilling. SOLAR is the obvious answer to both our energy independence AND protection of the environment - BUT the powers that be don't want us to have it, unless they can maintain the same capitalist business model and sell it to us drip by drip.

[UnbiasView]

Solar has many problems of its own and is not the magic bullet. Solar doesn't power my car and we don't have the batteries yet to effectively store the power. Here in Minnesota, a week without sun is not uncommon in the winter so what do you propose we do?

[donaldw6]

I appreciate your views on this issue, Ms. Pelosi, I really do, but given the opportunity to offer you feedback, I find my concentration distracted. One thought keeps filtering through my mind.

Impeach them, Madam Speaker. Please.

[ramper]

While we restrict drilling, the Chinese, Russians, etc. etc. etc. are drilling with far more environmental consequences because they do not do it as safe as we can. Nor do they care to be as safe. Pelosi should at least allow the people's representatives to vote on the matter. What is she afraid of? If it's in the ground we should get it out if it can be done safely. In Anwar we are talking of drilling in an area 1/3 the size of Dullas Airport and leaving untouched an area 2/3 the size of Great Britain. I know the record oil profits are ripe for examination but the last I saw they pay 50% tax on those profits and than project 7 billion for future exploration. Sun and wind is not going to keep our planes, trucks, and cars moving in the short term.

[rwe]

"The New Dirction Congress"?­??????????­???When you took over gas was $2.16 per gallon.Now ??? Oh yeah and your approval ratings?

[DavidJames]

The Bush drilling proposal is just more reality challenged raving from the fools on the hill. We have already been drilling more!

In 2000 the U.S. was drilling 25,000 gas and oil wells a year. In the last 7 years, the Republican's oil soaked "Drill Here and Drill Now" energy policies have approved increased drilling at every opportunity. In 2007 there were 49,000 gas and oil wells drilled.

The result of this mania for gas and oil is that oil is approaching $150/barrel and gas has increased from $1.50 to $4.50 per gallon.

Seven years of "Drill Here and Drill Now" have demonstrated its complete failure as a national energy policy. On the other hand a few months of reduced consumption has had immediate effect!

[The Impartial]

"Drill here and Drill now" ONLY helps Cheney's Halliburton drilling services company.

[Frenbar]

This whole drilling debate is a microcosm of American society in general.

It's clear to any informed observer that it will be years before any oil gained from a new drilling initiative becomes available. It's also clear that this oil, when available, will be sold on the open market like anything else, not somehow piped to the "American people".

The sad truth is that the vast majority of Americans are completely ignorant of this, any every other important policy issue, and the only way to gain their support is to pander to their ignorance. The Republicans have been aware of this for years, and it is why they win elections. It is also why our country is in for some very tough times ahead.

[oldwiseone]

MIT just announced

a major advancement

in the production of energy from the Sun.

In ten years we will not need oil

to power our homes and other elecrical devices.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

[UnbiasView]

So how will I power my car?

[ramper]

A sundial.

[Agent420]

Simple, you store the energy where the Sun doesn't shine.

[UnbiasView]

The reason Democrats are against drilling is because the environmentalists have a strong grip on them therefore you see them make up other arguments on why not to drill instead of just coming out and being honest. There arguments are weak in my opinion:

Sure, the oil companies have 68 million acres but are they in a stage of development? Getting a lease is just step one, it can take years to get a permit to actually drill and another permit to extract the contents. I also haven't seen them back up there claim with saying how much oil is actually on that land, just because they have a lease doesn't mean that there is a significant amount of oil there.

The other argument is it will take 10 years to get . . . so what? We will need in oil in 10, 20 and even 30 years. Hopefully not as much but there is little doubt it will be needed. Bill Clinton said it 13 years ago and looking back, sure would be nice if he wouldn't have made that weak excuse because ANWR would have been up and running.

The last argument, it won't lower prices . . . so if you blame the speculators you basically contradict yourself since they are setting the price in the FUTURES market on what they think the price will be in the FUTURE. If they think supply will be tight and we won't add to the supply, the price will

[FunkyP]

It would appear, from your opening sentence that all Democrats are against drilling, and all for the same reason.
It is just possible that there are other compelling reasons to oppose unfettered drilling than the purely environmental reasons.
The main reason I am opposed to relaxing current restrictions on drilling is because it offers us no solution to the problem. If we are addicted to oil, we cannot break the addiction with more oil. It is for economic reasons too that I oppose such a plan. Burning oil, or other fossil fuels, besides fouling our planet, also are the technologies of the PAST.
This is the 21st Century. We have the technology to totally eliminate oil as a source of energy to propel our vehicles. If we embark on a 10 year plan to replace the internal combustion engine with electric engines, or fuel cells, we can leave the oil in the ground for future use. The price of oil will plummet, because demand will also plummet. The oil companies are wetting themselves over the possibility of our escaping our addiction, and would like nothing better than to scare you (us) in to ignoring the alternatives and securing their own economic future.
Mercedes Benz will cease making gasoline powered vehicles in just a few short years. They see the future. There must be Democrats running that company! :>)

[timothe]

So answer this, Funky. You say that environmentalism has nothing to do with your argument.

Other than harming the environment, what exactly is bad about our "addiction to oil" if oil is plentiful off our coasts and in ANWR? If it's more cost efficient to run combustion engines than electric engines, why make the switch at all? Why is leaving the oil in the ground a good thing if there is so much of it?

[CCverve]

Here a simple question for ya...
WHY ISN"T THE PRESENT ADMINSTRATION PUSHING FOR EXPEDITED EXPLORATIO­N/EXPLOITA­TION PERMITTING ON THE EXISTING 68 MILLION ACRES PRESENTLY LEASED???

That would certainly be the most expediant process!
OR is that the present administration is looking to lease lock the last existing exploratio­n/exploita­tion opportunities?

[DavidJames]

These would be valid arguments if we were were drilling less.

However, the number of oil and gas wells drilled every year in the U.S. has been increasing continuously since 2000. 25,000 oil and gas wells were drilled in 2000. 49,000 oil and gas wells were drilled in 2007 with the highest completion rates in history.

If more oil and gas drilling was going to bring down gas and oil prices don't you think it would have done so by now?

Here is the link to the DOE site with the oil drilling statistics:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb0407.html

The whole drilling argument is a fraud, an obvious fraud too.

[UnbiasView]

It isn't quantity of drilling, it's quality:

http://www.seacoastnrg.org/img/us_crudeproduction.jpg

[steffi]

Mrs Pelosi, please don't give an inch on this issue. I'm so sick of supply side economics being the solution for everything under this administration. Please understand Democrats don't want to see either the Republicans or the Gas companies rewarded during this period of high energy prices. It is certainly true that Bush has no done one thing to lower gas prices and all his proposals won't have any affect the price. It will just be yet another way to sell of the nations precious resources to the highest bidder which has been so common under this administration.

[UnbiasView]

Standing stiff on this is going to cost the Democrats when people see their heating bills this winter . . . not allowing a vote to even come up points the blame directly at one party and their poor leadership that has a lower approval ratings than Bush somehow.