Sadly Travis Childers and Ronnie Musgrove join their GOP colleagues Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker in support of offshore drilling. In Childers defense he released a six point plan that included a lot of sound measures like increased funding for alternative fuels, with drilling only being one part of six.
Folks, this is nothing more than a distraction from the real issue facing this country of ending our oil dependence. The George W. Bush appointed Energy Information Administration released a study that I already posted about once. I think this needs repeating. This is related to OCS drilling.
The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.
That aside I have one big question. Besides a few misguided southern Democrats this is completely a Republican issue. My question to all you Republicans:
Why did you not pass OCS or ANWR drilling during your six year period of dominance? The GOP owned the White House, the Senate, and the House, yet no drilling laws passed. Fast forward to now, and all I hear is that it is Bill Clinton or Barack Obama's fault that we have high gas prices because they opposed drilling. Huh? That does not compute. Someone from the right please explain.
Message to Musgrove and Childers: Tighten up!! We let FISA slide for sound political reasons but like Kos said on CNN, we are not here to carry anyones water. This discussion on drilling needs to be based on the FACTS, not polls suggesting support for offshore drilling. Our position is not a liberal position, just a positon focused on the FACTS. Anything else is a pure distraction from the real conversation on energy we need to be engaged in. Tighten Up!
ReplyDeleteIts called cloture in the Senate, thats why the Republicans werent able to pass it before, and still not able to pass it now.
ReplyDeletePublic Opinion supports OCS drilling 67%, according to a Ramussen Poll. I would imagine that is much higher in Mississippi, especially since many South Mississippians are employed in the oil industry in Louisiana and Mobile Bay.
Again, Democrats in Mississippi running on a Republican Platform. By the way what is the Democratic Platform to lower cost?
We cannot drill our way out of this problem.
ReplyDeleteRepeat: We cannot drill our way out of this problem.
We need far higher efficiency and alternative means of producing energy.
That is the solution.
We need far higher efficiency and alternative means of producing energy.
ReplyDeleteAnd we will achieve that by....
In the short term, however, we'll continue to bail out mortgage holders and irresponsible banks (I hold both accountable) instead of relieving financial pressures brought on by fuel costs. (Sorry, my little rant).
And we will also allow oil to stay in the ground on our soil.
People need immediate, temporary relief from oil costs with a long term alternative energy plan. Could it be that both parties have a part of the solution but are each holding one piece of the puzzle and won't let go?
John,
ReplyDelete"We can not drill our way out of this." ----- You've seen the T.Boone Pickens ad also.
Good points by all.
So with a Republican controlled House, Senate and White House they could not even get a vote to the floor?
ReplyDeletePickens has an interesting plan. In fact it's linked at the bottom of the left column. I do think we should view it with some skepticism since part of his motivation is financial with about a billion dollars invested in wind he wants feds to pay to encourage it.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to Jeff's question- Mississippi Dawg already answered it, but the bottom line is that it requires 60 votes to do anything in the Senate. Rs obviously only had 55 at their highpoint (05-07) and some Rs opposed ANWR and some still do. There may have been some conservative Dems who supported it but not nearly enough to get a vote on it.
ReplyDeleteAs you probably know, when you don't get 60 votes to end cloture, there is no up and down vote on final passage of the bill. It easily passed the R House everytime it came up, but they couldn't get 60 votes in the Senate.
In 2006, the Rs tries to tie it to a mimimum wage increase but the Ds continued to block even with the min. wage hike.
It did clear Congress in 95 or 96, but Clinton vetoed it.
Alot of Conservatives gave them grief over the fact that they were in power for six years.
ReplyDeleteOf course John and Jeff, you see nothing wrong with banning all drilling, fixing it to where shale oil is off limits, no problems with a fifty cent tarriff on imported ethanol, lawsuits designed to stop nuclear plants from being built, and a mandate for setting aside corn production for ethanol so that food prices skyrocket.
but hey, there is some magic bullet out there just waiting to be found.
Kingfish, save your strawman garbage for some other blog. I don't think we have said a thing on your pathetic list.
ReplyDeleteThat is quite the strawman. If you read the blog more regularly you'd see that, that isn't the case.
ReplyDeleteI support more nuclear and have for a while and have toured Grand Gulf and found it to be quite the facility. I know folks who work there too (not that that means anything).
Ethanol from switch-grass is far better for food, cost, and the environment than corn.
I support responsible drilling. Saying I'd support a ban is ridiculous and I'll attribute it to a one time lapse.
Brett, I am not doubting you because I know many Southern Republicans especially FLA GOP'ers were against OCS drilling. Do you have a bill number that I can reference?
ReplyDeleteTo make a further point based on Brett's comment. There were Republican's who understood that drilling was not the right answer, like John McCain. He voted with the Dems against drilling repeatedly. It is a shame to see the Straight Talk Express working the poll numbers instead of providing straight talk. Barack Obama has real answers for the energy crisis, not the same old Big Oil written energy policies that have landed us in the crisis to start with offered by Senator McCain. Especially sad when you know John Mccain does not agree with his own stance, much like the Bush tax cuts.
ReplyDeleteAs a Dem it is sad to see Musgrove and Childers cower to falsehoods that they fear could beat them. The truth will set you free.
"Barack Obama has real answers for the energy crisis,"
ReplyDeleteWhich is? He is against more drilling, he is against more nuclear, etc. I know he is for alternative energy, and so am I, but what is he going to do to help the pocketbook next month, not in the next 10 years. There is a reason oil is still being used, its the cheapest form of energy at our disposal today, and will be for the near future.
Here is a link to GovTrack- here
ReplyDeleteAll I did was search the word ANWR for the 109th congress. If you look at HR 5429, it would have opened up ANWR and the bill passed 225-201 with 27 Ds supporting it and 30 Rs opposing. It looks like it was the northern moderate-liberal Rs who opposed it. All four MS reps. supported it. I am not sure if OCS bill had come up, but since the R leading House continued the ban on it I assume they supported the ban at the time.
About McCain, you can say the tax cuts were a flip-flop and I wouldn't argue too hard against unless I was one of his staffers. As for his new support of OCS, that could be considered a legitimte policy change due to certain events changing. AT $2 a gallon he opposed it because the risks don't outweigh the gains, while at $4 a gallon he could say they do.
I am going to write a drilling thread in the next few days where we can continue this discussion.
ReplyDeleteIn short drilling is not a solution for a number of reasons. We have over 20% of the world's oil demand and 3% of thwe supply tapped or untapped. How will you convince the oil barrons to sell the oil here unless you are willing to go Chavez style and commander all oil on US territoy at government defined prices. That does not sound very Republican.
Like I said I will lay out my full argument on drilling in a post in the next few days.
Dawg you and Brett are good to have on board. Thaks for the intelligent posts.