With regards to offshore and other drilling

Great article, with references, that sho why the Dems are against drilling.

The Audacity of Nope
Obama’s oil policy.

By Deroy Murdock

To plan a long and challenging journey, would you reject Mapquest and GPS and only consult an atlas from the 1970s? Unlikely. But to pinpoint America’s offshore oil deposits, Congressional Democrats, starting with Senator Barack Obama, love disco-era maps. Despite his conditional, latter-day support for limited offshore drilling, Obama is the sole sponsor of legislation that would block geological research to locate offshore oil.


********Federal officials currently employ estimates based primarily on two-dimensional maps that oil-industry surveyors produced in the 1970s and furnished to the Interior Department. Since 1981, Congressional appropriations amendments effectively have barred Interior from financing or permitting survey expeditions — particularly and precisely in the 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf where oil production and exploration are verboten.

In 2005, Congress mandated new, quintennial inventories, then gave Interior six months and $0.00 to assess how much oil and natural gas undergird the 1.76 billion-acre Outer Continental Shelf — a laughably impossible task.

“They couldn’t even board a research vessel,” explains a congressional staffer who studies these issues. Interior’s “paper inventory,” the aide adds, “examined Canadian and West African coastal data, imagined where those sediments pooled before the Continental Drift, then extrapolated to guesstimate what’s off our Atlantic coast today.”

The resulting document states:* “Resource estimates are highly dependent on the current knowledge base, which has not been updated in 20 to 40 years for areas under congressional moratorium. . . . ” Translation: “We have no idea what’s really out there.”

Obama’s “Oil SENSE Act” would repeal the 2005 Energy Policy Act’s authorization of these inventories. Introduced in January 2007, S.115 would leave decision makers with Carter Administration maps drawn with pre-PC technology. This is like engineering a Space Shuttle mission with slide rules.*



    • *Obama’s bill would prohibit expanded use of 3-D seismic techniques that locate and measure underwater oil deposits — even though those tools are in wide use where offshore drilling is allowed, such as the western Gulf of Mexico. In October 1999, President Clinton’s Energy Department evaluated the environmental quality of 1970s’ 2-D equipment against last decade’s 3-D technology [a PDF of the report is available here]. With the latter, Energy concluded, “Overall impacts of exploration and production are reduced because fewer wells are required to develop the same amount of reserves.” In 1970, 17 percent of offshore wells struck oil. By 1997, that figure was 48 percent.

Contemporary 4-D surveying adds the dimension of time. Satellites help find and quantifysubsea deposits, track their flows, and predict their next steps. Some 70 percent of 4-D wells hit oil.*


**Obama’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Drill policy spurns these marvels and embraces outdated information gathered with obsolete instruments. This is the audacity of ignorance.


Adults should not make decisions in willful obliviousness. Democrats like Obama prefer not to know what riches rest off America’s coasts — since, from their perspective, only bad things can arise politically from finding good things scientifically. They resemble kindergartners who cover their ears and hum loudly to muffle their parents’ unwelcome words.

Meanwhile, Americans struggle to fuel planes, trains, and automobiles. Despite this national nightmare, Congressional Democrats fled on a five-week summer vacation, rather than vote on Republican amendments to extend offshore drilling. Democrats chose suntan oil over oil production.

Instead of voting on Republican energy proposals, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., California) dispatched her colleagues to build sandcastles. Nevertheless, GOP representatives unofficially are pleading their case to tourists inside the House chamber.

Moreover, ten Republican senators wrote President Bush on August 1 to request an executive order for an onshore seismic survey of the hydrocarbon resources beneath the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge’s 1.5 million acres.

“The last seismic survey of the area is 25 years old (winter of 1983-84), and the United States government is operating with outdated information of America’s energy inventory,” the letter states. “This would be purely informational and environmentally non-intrusive,” it continues (emphasis in the original). “Modern seismic testing . . . is roughly equivalent to photography in terms of its environmental impact on land.”

This letter was signed by Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn of Texas, and six other GOP senators, including ranking Republicans of four committees. According to Jim Guirard — president of Washington, D.C.’s TrueSpeak Institute and former chief of staff to the late Senator Russell Long (D., Louisiana) — who encouraged senators to send this letter, other senators were eager to sign on, but ran out of time to do so as Congress’ careened toward adjournment.

Democrats in the Senate favor doubling gasoline prices rather than considering further fuel-supply development, as Human Events’ Jed Babbin has observed. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (R., Kentucky) asked to debate pro-energy legislation. Senator Ken Salazar (D., Colorado), representing majority Democrats, objected. And if gasoline reached $5.00-per-gallon? Salazar said no. $7.50? McConnell wondered. Salazar: Nyet. McConnell continued, “I would renew my request with the modification that the trigger be $10 a gallon at the pump.” Salazar replied: “I object.”

Late last month, Senator Charles Schumer (D., New York) complained, “It’s Christmas in July” as he denounced oil-industry earnings, even though that sector’s 8.3 percent margin for 2007 lagged the chemical and electronics industries’ 12.7 and 14.5 percent respective returns. “Big Oil is plowing these profits into stock buybacks instead of increasing production,” Schumer huffed.

Naturally, it’s hard for Big Oil to generate more petroleum when it cannot open new refineries, develop the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, broaden offshore production, nor even modernize its underwater maps. This is like screaming at Mom because dinner is late — while blocking the kitchen door.

For all their supposed sophistication, Obama, Pelosi, Salazar, Schumer, and their caucus-mates are anti-intellectual eco-Luddites. Democratic bullheadedness deserves the republic’s scorn.

The illusion of vast undeveloped U.S. oil resources

Enough with Welfare for Big Oil.

Gas prices seem to be dropping due primarily do to less demand and a stronger Dollar.

If no scientific studies, using the latest technology, have been done (indeed, they were prohibited, by law, even to the Energy Dept.) then how do you know?

How do I know what…?

That you are not too clever? By reading your posts.

Hope this hleps.

“Osama’s” stand on drilling is a complete disgusting disaster and a fine example of typical Democratic political expediency. Anyone who votes for this fool is voting for high oil prices and a continuation of America’s surrender to foreign oil interests.

Speaking of not too bright.:stuck_out_tongue:

Should we drill were there is known oil or where there might be oil but probably isn’t.
i.e. A lease does not assure oil.

Oil companies pay more in taxes than they make in profits. Much more.

Guess what, it’s the consumer who pays those “oil company” taxes.

Like I said not too bright.:roll:

Look can you guys take your political whining to the not for everyone section.

Better yet, why not just drill a hole in your head and let the sap run out. :stuck_out_tongue:

You could have made that request in your post #2.:wink:

You, too? That makes about 7,456 of us.:roll:


Nice, logical arguement.

Did you actually read my post.

In short, no real exploration (using the best technology available) been done in many years.

Again, argue to the arguement, not to the person.

This isn’t personal, it’s all about the facts.

Ad hominum doesn’t suit you, Brian.

I read and learn. If the facts change, I change. I have no emotional investment in my position because I don’t (and can’t) control it.

The facts and best data, at the time, do control that.

That’s called the scientific method.

Will the article you posted ended with this to say.

Post this tired old crap somewhere else.

Prove “this tired old crap” isn’t true instead of whining about it.

As to the article, and the part you highlighted, your point is?

When did you become my Mom? If I don’t do I have to go my room?:stuck_out_tongue:

Take your right wing, wing nut theories somewhere else. :twisted:

We have done the wing nut path long enough and the country has been driven off a cliff.

Isn’t there a Bible study missing a hall monitor somewhere you guys cold play at?

Or perhaps a PTA bake sale needs some baked goods police for you Barney Fifes to patrol.

The left wing, wing nut theories have been proven wrong for decades.

What shall we try next?:roll:

News of Pelosi on Drilling](http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-indicates-openness-to-offshore-drilling-vote-2008-08-11.html)
Keep up the pressure:-)

Pelosi indicates openness to offshore drilling vote By Mike Soraghan Posted: 08/11/08 09:51 PM [ET] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday night dropped her staunch opposition to a vote on offshore oil drilling in the House.
Republicans, reacting to high gas prices, have demanded a vote on additional oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf, where drilling is currently blocked by a moratorium. Until now, Pelosi (D-Calif.) has resisted the idea as a “hoax.” But in an interview on CNN’s Larry King Live, she indicated that she was open to a vote.

“They have this thing that says drill offshore in the protected areas,” Pelosi said. “We can do that. We can have a vote on that.” She indicated such a vote would have to be part of a larger package that included other policies, like releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which she said could bring down prices in a matter of days.
“But it has to be part of something that says we want to bring immediate relief to the public and is not just a hoax on them,” Pelosi continued.
She even indicated that she might support a package that includes drilling. She said her decision on whether to support such legislation would depend on how the policies are packaged.

My thought are that local (USA) drilling and adding Nuke plants are a good idea for the short term.

The future is pretty obvious, that we need to go towards Electric as a way of providing energy to private transportation vehicles.

The real question about McCains plan is what will he really do as far as trying to provide an environment which encourages the search for producing alternative ways of producing Electricity.

The suspicion is that his ideas may only include the short term.(drilling)

Obama’s plan is to have you inflate your tires.

That’s it.:wink:

No nuclear, no drilling, no coal.