A Drilling Plan Full of Holes
Touring America’s oil rigs and nuclear plants, John McCain sometimes sounds as if he will produce enough wind to power the nation all by himself. So strongly does his current rhetoric smell of methane, the gas emanating from manure, that he might even qualify for a renewable energy tax incentive.
The former straight talker, who could not help telling the truth, has found the voice of the demagogue within him. As Senator McCain seeks to exploit public anger over the price of gasoline, first with his dubious “gas tax holiday” and now with his campaign for offshore oil drilling, the thoughtful legislator who defied his own party on issues such as global warming and Alaskan oil leasing has been replaced by that much more familiar Congressional figure—a rented mouthpiece for the energy industry.
Not surprisingly, this new McCain is not quite as accessible to the press as the earlier version, partly because he resents the media attention devoted to his Democratic opponent and partly because he no longer is so eager to answer every question a reporter might pose. He prefers to listen to the cheers of eager boobs who believe him when he says, “We’re not going to pay $4 dollars a gallon for gas because we are going to drill here and we are going to drill now!”
But should he ever stop yelling and start thinking again, there will be plenty of questions awaiting him, including these:
Senator, if you truly think we should be doing “all of the above” to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, why have you voted against every recent Congressional measure to encourage renewable energy sources?
If you still worry about the effects of climate change, then why do you now emphasize drilling for additional oil offshore rather than energy sources that don’t create greenhouse gases? And why do you continue to talk about so-called “clean coal,” which doesn’t actually exist ?
Why do you say that offshore drilling will cut gasoline prices when the Energy Information Administration predicts that will not happen for a decade and will make little difference even then?
According to your best estimate, when will “drilling here and drilling now” reduce the price of gasoline in the United States? Please explain why you no longer believe in the data supplied by the EIA, which you asked to provide the economic analysis for the climate-change bill that you co-sponsored with Senator Joseph Lieberman.
When you assure audiences that drilling offshore will produce more oil within a matter of months, as you did in Bakersfield last week, are you relying on sources other than the U.S. Government’s Energy Information Administration? Please identify the person or persons who told you that the oil industry can produce more petroleum within the next several months if we start offshore leasing today. Did you learn of that miraculous capacity from one of the many oil company lobbyists who have advised and raised money for your campaign?
When you said that there was no significant oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico even during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, were you aware that at least seven million gallons were spilled as a result of Katrina? How much oil must leak from a damaged offshore rig or barge before you would consider the spillage to be “significant”?
By the way, where will all that new offshore drilling occur if the states of Florida and California continue to oppose offshore leasing, as their governors have vowed to do? Do you still support the right of those states to prevent drilling in their coastal waters, as you promised last year? Doesn’t that promise conflict with your claim that offshore wells will produce enough new oil to lower gasoline prices?
How much do you plan to spend subsidizing the expansion of nuclear power plants, which are not economically viable at present? Why do you favor spending hundreds of billions on nuclear power subsidies while blocking federal support for clean, safe, renewable technologies such as wind, solar and biomass?
Finally, what is so funny about checking tire pressure to save energy? Are you aware that auto and tire maintenance—like other conservation and efficiency measure—can save far more oil than offshore leasing will ever produce? Did you know that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has urged the people of California to pump up their tires?
Do you really think it is prudent to mock him?
jconason@observer.com
Don't be surprised if you never hear these questions asked by our comically disfuntional beltway press core. After all...that would a flagrant act of journalism.
Re. McCain and the "air in the tire" question.
Perhaps McCain is unaware that for months now newspapers and television have featured articles and experts preaching the "check your air" gospel. No doubt McCains advisors who probably do little of their driving, think they're clever. The ad is thus ineffective if not counterproductive.
Jack McCarthy
Tall. Fl.
In addition to economic viability, I think the question that needs to be asked to John McCain about Nuclear energy is whether he would be willing to have nuclear waste shipped through his state? Where will all the newly created waste be stored?
It's sad to watch a public figure stray so far from his past policy stands. It's one thing to change your mind on an issue when the facts and circumstances call for it, but in McCain's case, his shifts on global warming and offshore drilling are purely based on a cynical and mamipulative attempt to dupe the public.
I'm waiting for Bill08 to post some nonsense in the next few hours that claims black is white, night is day, and that offshore drilling will lower gas prices by Saturday. Sorry Bill08, but you cannot repeal reality. Facts matter, and in the case of offshore drilling, there's no data to support your claims or those of your candidate.
John McCain is decent man, but he's flat out wrong on this issue and hundred of others. McCain reminds me of an elderly relative who's prone to forgetfulness and fanciful claims. We all want Grandpa to show up for Christmas and Thanksgiving, and we enjoy his stories, but we sure as hell don't want him running the country.
Joe: just what is your expertise in the area of energy exploration and implementation. Oh yeah, you attended some Journalism classes a long time ago. Shouldn't you be on your knees unzipping Bill Clinton's fly?
Oddly enough, news has come out now that George W's father's administration pushed the "inflate your tires to save gas" theory lo these many years ago. Evidently, it is still a theory untried and untested by McCain and other Energy Industry stooges.
Also, I'd like to know more about the hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into McCain's warchest by Big Oil executives two days after his "yes" vote to drill offshore for oil.
To SuperDem:
Let's see - Bill Clinton OK'd drilling in ANWR in 1995. No, that's right; he opposed it. We'd have that 10.3 billion barrels of production online right now, along with the 750,000 jobs it would have created, if President Clinton hadn't used his veto pen.
And, while offshore drilling will take, according to the API, 3 to 13 years to come online, those ADDITIONAL 18 billion barrels at least will eventually come online. Or do you plan to do away with the internal combustion engine and take one hundred million vehicles off the road any time soon?
Just remember, the less fuel we all use, the more Algore will have for his new megaboat. Or more gas for the limo to take Senator Edwards to see his illegitimate child or Senator Craig to visit those restrooms. Perhaps Edwards and Jesse Jackson can ride together, and they can all sell each other them carbon offsets.
And Barack Obama voted against the last energy bill because it was so full of goodies for the oil companies. No, that's wrong; he voted for it - pork and all.
And John McCain voted for that same bill. Golly - wrong again; it was Senator McCain who voted against it.
And Senator McCain has taken $1.2 million from those dirty oil lobbyists. But didn't Senator Obama take at least $400,000 from those same lobbyists, with probably a lot more in the pipeline? Guess Senator Obama is jealous because he can't extract as much from the lobbyists.
And aren't we all glad that House Speaker Pelosi is allowing a vote on drilling offshore? No, let's see - she's used every parliamentary trick to thwart the will of the American people.
Aren't we glad the Democrat leaders in Congress stayed in session to settle the energy crisis? No, wrong again.
Well, at least the people of Alaska, Florida and California are against drilling on their lands and off their shores. No- wrong again; the Public Policy Institute of California and Rasmussen in Florida polling now found citizens in both those states favor offshore drilling off their own coasts. And Alaskans have always favored drilling in ANWR.
How about joining me in calling for all types of energy production - nuclear, clean coal, oil, gas, wind, solar, etc.? Or are you against freedom?
There's never an air pressure gauge around when you need one.
Bill08: you are exactly right, the left is totally against freedom of everything, except for themselves. PC, speech codes, fairness doctrines, hate thought, hate speech, etc. everything that they are for should be free and everything that they are against should be outlawed, in the name of freedom.
Bill08:
"...the less fuel we all use, the more Algore will have for his new megaboat."
Hey, Freeper, you forgot to include the extra fuel needed on January 20 for Obama's limo ride in the Inaugural Parade.
Hey Bill08-
Those barrels of oil they bring up from the ground are sent to asia. It is a world market you know. The oil companies are under no obligation to sell this and future oil production here in the USA. According to experts it may lower the price of a barrel 75 cents. Oh and what about the untapped reserves off shore that ARE LEASED and not utilized by big oil? I say they should use it or lose it.
Hey Bill08 can we store McCains proposed nuclear plants waste in your garage? Arn't we glad the GOP congress solved the energy crisis during the 7 years they controlled the congress and had a republican pResident!
To Cab and the rest of you recent public-school-educated folks:
First - please have some small understanding of what you speak.
1. Oil is a fungible product. Whether it is sold in the USA or not, the rise in production lowers the cost (Economics 101)to Americans. Or would you rather freeze in the dark?
2. There are currently 68 million acres leased by oil companies on which there is no production. However, had you even a small inkling of any knowledge on this subject, you would know that the geos show either (1)no oil or (2)oil that is economically unfeasible to drill for right now. Should the federal government be willing to give back the billions of dollars it has garnerned in these leases, I am quite sure the oil companies would be more than glad to swap.
3. And other than your atrocious spelling, I agree that the Republicans did absolutely nothing. But I am not making excuses for them, as you seem to be making for the Democrats.
4. Finally, you make an absurd comment about keeping nuclear waste in my garage. Well, unlike those two Senators, those two champions of alternative energy who refuse to have wind farms built within ICBM-range of their beloved Nantucket, I am perfectly comfortable with having nuclear waste stored in my state.
Please, this is too easy. Don't liberals have any factual arguments to make? Can't you refute any of my comments?
Didn't think so.
Not just through his state but burried in his state! I will bet that when the citizens of his state finds out he won't be their us senator. Just staight talk!
Why are Republicans opposing measures that would lower fuel prices today instead of a decade from now? Republicans blocked opening the strategic oil reserve which would have dropped the price of a barrel of oil 20-30% overnight. Republicans are blocking legislation like that proposed by Senator Tim Johnson which would halt most oil trading speculation. Ending speculation should drop prices by 15-30%.
I believe the reason Republicans are just repeating oil industry talking points is that Republicans are raking in tons of campaign donations from Big Oil. Essentially, we are paying a forced "Republican campaign oil tax" at the pump in the form of price-gouging. McCain is getting millions. Members of Congress from Charlie Dent in Pennsylvania to Marsha Blackburn in Tennessee are helping Big Oil rob us in order to fund their campaigns. Even Republican Congressional challengers like Andy Harris in Maryland are carrying water for Big Oil.
All voters should demand that these candidates return their campaign donations from the oil industry or donate them to charities that provide home heating oil assistance to struggling American families!
Let's see what Senator McCain said in July 2008.
“I do not believe that we should use the strategic oil reserves at this point."
Oh, wait - that wasn't Senator McCain; that was Senator Obama in St. Louis in July 2008. Political expediency, anyone?
And using the SPR (Senator Obama can't even get the name right- it's "Strategic Petroleum Reserve)will create how many new reserves?
That's right - the answer is "zero".
As far as oil speculation, I would assume that, since you want to charge speculators with running up the price of oil, you will give them credit for the recent $30 per barrel decrease.
And do any of you liberals understand anything at all about the oil speculation business? Even if you hinder it in the United States, the rest of the world, where most of the speculators already reside, will just laugh at us.
And let's see what the Boston Globe had to say today about donations from Big Oil. Actually, we know Big Oil can't give anything to anyone - just its employees.
"The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today that employees of Exxon, Chevron, and BP have all contributed more money to Obama than to McCain."
That's right - more to Obama than to McCain.
I just wish you liberals weren't so resentful and jealous of people who know how to make money, how to fuel your cars, heat your homes, provide power to this world. There's over a trillion barrels of oil available to be drilled in the United States and its OCS. Compare that to 240 billion barrels in all of Saudi.
Why do you want to deny all Americans a higher standard of living just to satisfy your own selfish desires?
Conason misses the point completely. The fact is, we are being hostage to foreign oil. Over $600 Billion flows out of our country to a few friends but mostly to our enemies. This has to stop. As far as inflating your tires is concerned, you just can't make a blanket statement saying "put more air in your tires". You don't have to exceed the tire manufactures pressure recommendations by much to create a dangerous situation. Telling someone to put more air in their tires, that doesn't know what they are doing, is totally irresponsible. Finally, I am completely for any alternative energy source we can come up with. Forget ethanol, it is to costly to ship because of its corrosive nature, and it takes 1.4 gallon to equal the same amount of energy as 1 gallon of gas. I like the idea of plug in hybrid automobile, but our electrical energy grid will not support it. So Mr Conason, before you slam someone, please tell us you plan! I suspect that you do not have one.
Mr. Caldwell is right - although I think the number is closer to $700 billion annually. It is a matter of vital national security and financial stability.
There is a vast difference between Republicans and Democrats on this one. Republicans are in favor of exploring all avenues and developing all types of fuels - and letting the market determine which is the best source.
Democrats believe that Big Brother knows best. It is why most are unilaterally opposed to all types of producing more oil, or producing more nuclear energy, of producing more clean coal.
Democrats understand that it is the production of energy that gives people security, mobility, independence, freedom. And Democrats can't have this. Democrats need people dependent on Big Brother to solve all their ills. For if the need for Big Brother goes away, the Democrats' raison d'etre also vanishes.
Bill08
According to gov sources drilling will lower the barrel price 75 cents(a fact). I am not a democrat. Do not paint me with that broad brush. I hold them accountable for this mess too. Now, as for nuclear waste. The government wants to put it in containers that are good for 10,000 years. The waste is deadly far longer then that. I am all for wind and solar. I will not freeze or be in the dark as I sell my excess solar back to the utilities.
It makes sense for Obama to carry a tire pressure gauge at all times- this way he can check his inflated ego. And after all, he is like a tire - but he's a retread that pulls to the left while driving and full of hot air......what a hoot!!!
Cab,
I am highly skeptical of government forecasts of anything (see WMD's, Soviet economic strength, hurricanes, global warming/cooling, etc.). Strange how just the threat of only offshore drilling has lowered the price about $30 per barrel in the last month. And it also means that gas won't be going to $5 to $10 a gallon as some oil experts predict.
And, more importantly, it means reducing the need for imported oil, increasing our security (even if we sell it all to Asia, that means America has net money to buy it from somewhere else). Whether we use it or sell it, we greatly balance our horrendous trade deficit, whatever the price.
And let's store the waste for 10,000 years. When those storage facilities go bad, after 400 more generations, we'll dig it up and store the waste in new containers.
And I'm for wind and solar, too. Now, if we can just get those two jackass Senators in Massachusetts to approve windfarms in their own backyards, we'll be in good shape.
Drilling is not the only answer, but it is a large piece of the puzzle. Let's do it all. Let's give huge incentives to creating all types of energy.
Give us our freedom.
Bill08
I too am skeptical of government forecasts (ie Iraq oil will pay for war, wmds, we do not torture etc.)
My problem with nuclear waste is that no society has lasted that long (10,000 years) so it is difficult to say with certainty that it can be kept safe. "We" will not be here in 10,000 years to dig it up and put it in new containers(or 20,000, 30,000 years...)What is the half life of that stuff anyway?
I do not put my faith in Massachusetts solving our problems, after all, wind farms can go in most states. Senators are elected and can be kicked out of office so I guess the good people of Massachusetts can vote them out if they want.
Can it be factually confirmed that the threat of drilling lowered the price of oil? Or are their other variables?
Things like proper tire inflation, new spark plugs, clean air filter, etc. really do improve gas milage
You speak of 7 million gallons of oil as being spilled during the 2005 hurricane season. You don’t mention that most of it was not from oil platforms but from tankers, barges and damaged infrastructure. You don’t mention that about 46 million gallon of crude oil seep naturally out of the seafloor in the Gulf of Mexico every year.
How much oil has to be spilt to be significant? Obviously a lot more than 7 million gallons.
You say this:
“Are you aware that auto and tire maintenance—like other conservation and efficiency measure—can save far more oil than offshore leasing will ever produce?”
Now that was an asnine statement right from the start. Not you or any other political wonk can ever know how much oil is to be found offshore. If you and the other ostriches really believe that there is nothing significant out there, then take those fools’ lease money and let them drill dry holes. It will make jobs and tax revenues and they can’t spill what they don’t find. Besides you are already in far more danger of an oil spill from all those tankers bringing all that imported oil to refineries on the East and West coasts.
And then there was this little gem:
“Why do you favor spending hundreds of billions on nuclear power subsidies while blocking federal support for clean, safe, renewable technologies such as wind, solar and biomass?”
Okay, you think biamass is safe? There is a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico caused by farm runoff that is the size of the state of New Jersey. Now that biofuels are making an expansion of farming such crops, the dead zone is expanding. Oil operations never did any damage approaching this magnitude. It might be “clean” by your standards, but that would make oil a miracle of environmental benevolence by comparison.
Let’s just ban that farming stuff, shall we?
Anyone who knows the facts are aware that you have skewed the facts in your favor. Don't make come back there.
Any one who knows the facts are aware that you have skewed them. Don't make come back there!
Why would you get on this forum and pretend that you have all the facts? You only know what think you know.
Because Al Gore is a perceived hyppocrite doesn't mean he isn't right. Your not that clever so please stop. This is easy!
He didn't take it from lobbyist. please tell us who he took it from.This is so easy.
Hey, Hitler was your gradmother. Why would you want to post things that weren't true?
Bill08,
Speaking of nuclear waste, did you happen to know who is one of Mr Obama's largest contributors are? Exelon Corp.
Who is Exelon Corp? They are the parent company of Commonwealth Edison, Illinois' main electric supplier.
Why is it important to know that Exelon and its employees have contributed well over $277.000 (including the CEO of Exelon)?
Well it seems that Mr Obama worked really hard for that money by attempting to pass a bill to remove the requirement for companies operating nuclear generators to report radioactive leaks from their plants. He even held up a Presidential appointment to try to force the passage of this measure. It included a measure to make reporting of nuclear leakages VOLUNTARY. Of course, he lied to the voters of Iowa during the Primary, telling them he opposed the bill when in fact he was the one pushing for passage of the bill. It ultimately did not pass, but not because of anything that Obama did. I used to admire Joe Conason until lately when he has given his soul to the ultra left wing of the Democrat Party. Look at his repeated criticisms of McCain while ignoring items like this about Obama.
By the way, it is also interesting that Obama's campaign manager Axelrod was also a consultant for Exelon too.
Just in case you might think these are "minor" leakages, one unreported leak in 1998 at the Braidwood IL nuclear generator was a spill of THREE MILLION GALLONS of Tritium laced water into the ground. This water is still present in groundwater in the area of the plant in measurable amounts to this day since Tritium's half-life is 12.32 years (that means it will decrease in strength by half every 12.32 years until it is all gone).
People who own property around the Braidwood plant can't sell their property because nobody wants to buy land anywhere near the spill area.
The Quad Cities plant had to be closed down recently when its discharge water into the Mississippi River was so hot it could cook the fish in the water.
By the way, speaking of hypocritical people... the Quad Cities plant is 25% owned by Birkshire Hathaway and Mr T Boone Pickens who lectures us daily about having to use solar and wind power while he rakes in millions as part owner of these nuclear plants.
Not only wasn't the public made aware of the Braidwood spill but Exelon itself didn't know about the leak until LAST YEAR (2007), NINE years after the spill occurred.
This is only one of EIGHT known leaks from Exelon plants in Illinois since 1996. Exelon also owns three plants in Pennsylvania (including Three-mile Island) and one in New Jersey. They are campaigning to build a new one in Texas as well. So with their record at Braidwood and Three-mile Island, they make fine bedfellows for Obama and Axlerod.
These antic by Obama/Axelrod bring back the old saying "We know what you are, its just a question of how much you charge".
US Navy runs nuclear dozens of nuclear reactors all over the world with no major accidents in over 50 years and they train kids straight out of High school to do it.
Just the process of the United states extracting oil from off shore or ANWR would drop the cost of oil. Its a commodity based market more production or even projection of more production and the price drops.
Obama voted for the Cheny energy bill he now attacks he voted for it because of the BILLIONS of dollars of pork and "bridge to nowehere" type funding it brought to his state. Not to mention the Millions of govt funding it provided for his wives company. OBAMA is a classic chicago pol. The fact so many of his "followers" cant see this and are so impressed by how well he reads a teleprompter shows how easily controlled they are.
People,
Bill08 is a perfect example of people of good concience, moral correctness and sufficient intellect who find it more comfortable to find fault in the efforts of others than to get involved and get dirty perfecting a fix to a precieved problem. It is because they are good people who would be destroyed emotionally by the truth.
It is a fact that when less resources are used less are needed. The fact that fuel prices have lowered over 30 cents per gallon this past two months because we Americans have cut back on unnecessary travel and turned to more fuel efficient vehicles is proof that we need to change our lifestyles. In doing that we will effect the needed relief from our current problems. Every little consideration is helpful when 300 million get involved.
It has been said and I personally identify with these words:
"Americans always do the right thing,..... unfortuneately it is only after all other possibilities have been tried."
Respectfully,
Friedrich Von Deitsch
Elm Creek Nebraska