Offshore Oil Drilling Will Still Not Lower Gasoline Prices: Barack Obama and Legislative Compromise

As much as I agree with you that we need to transform our energy makeup, I support offshore drilling. My reasoning for this is completely sinister:

Let the oil companies spend their billions on new exploration. This will leave less money for them to invest in alternative energy technologies. Hopefully, then, we're not going to see Chevron-Texaco owning patents like the NiMH batteries that powered the 2002 Toyota RAV4, a car that was *assassinated* at birth because it was so good it presented a disruptive threat to Big Oil...

To sum it up, let them drill their own graves ;)

well flat out it's stupid for anyone to really think drilling for oil offshore would reduce prices. In other countries it might for them as they seem more driven to bring the costs down for their people but in the US we'd probably be selling that oil at market value and just use it to fill the pockets of the already rich.

That aside we have no new refineries anyways so there's a bottleneck there too, it's not like this would really make an incredible impact now, or in the future. But none the less it is a compromise, we can't really switch over to non petrol based methods of transportation just like that, and this method while being horrible for the environment, and delaying the inevitable could very well be a critical component of an effective energy plan, we need the time to design, and implement an alternative system and this system of stalling is probably just what our government needs to stall for time, and keep the population from rioting over prices.

The question: The debate I want readers to have (if I can be that directing) is this: Should supporters of renewable energy essentially ‘throw a bone’ to oil companies and their supporters, so that we can move ahead critical renewable energy promotion legislation? Should we not get so excited about the McCain/Bush rhetoric about reducing energy prices now, even though we know it to be false, if it will get us to the end position of getting more renewable energy online?

My answer: We should be prepared to "throw a bone" to get what we want. That is how this country was designed to work and we see what happens when one side will not compromise: nothing at all happens.

We want (need) the alternative energy credits and incentives in this country, to spur R&D and also consumption by early- and middle-adopters of viable new technologies, that will reduce our economy- and planet-destroying reliance on foreign oil.

And what need we "give up?" Some leases that by all accounts won't mean jack for at least another 8-10 years at the earliest? That may or may not be exploited, or even NEEDED, if we can transition away from oil fast enough?

Oh yeah, I'd take that deal in a heartbeat. Good for Obama to see that this is a reasonable step forward, even if it's not the ideal step. Trouble with ideals is, not everyone shares them, and you do need others' help to get anything accomplished in our form of govt.

I'm not a fan of off-shore drilling, but I think this piece of legislation is worthwhile because the R&D dept's of car manufacturer's are already working overtime on gettnig alternative powered vehicles out on the road and federal grants would speed up that process. In the 10 years it'll take an oil company to start barreling oil, we'll hopefully be greatly reducing our dependence on oil, therefore driving the cost of oil way down since we're adding to supply.

What we REALLY need to pay attention to is the taxation of these off-shore drilling sites. We need those funds in order to put those into research grants for universities and organizations promoting sustainable transportation.

Barack Obama is thinking on his toes so that he shows he can make tough decisions; but the right decisions for America's future. If we don't pass that bill, we're going to be stuck in a rutt and having Saudi's laughing at us and thinking "THAT is why we don't have a democracy over here, lol" as we keep throwing money at them as a country.

=) Go OBAMA!

I don't support this move as an interim measure. It's ridiculous for the republicans to keep holding out just so they get their way. The only partial positive coming out of this is the oil being tapped would HAVE to be sold to the US only. But they don't have a plan to put that measure into place! Don't fucking hold your hands behind your back unless you've GOT SOMETHING IN THEM.

I'm pretty sure we're all aware of how much money the republicans get from oil & gas companies (hint, it's 75% of the money those types of companies donate). I know Barack's trying to get the renewable energy measure approved and I know the only alternative to compromise is kicking out 95% of the republican party, but that doesn't mean I can't still be mad that the majority of republicans see this as ANY type of solution. It really doesn't make them look too good (either side) considering the proposal is completely ineffective except to bring down some of the commodity trader prices, and that is likely only temporary until someone remembers that the middle east is STILL where we get most of our oil and they are batshit insane.

The democrats are also to blame, being primarily responsible for one of the lowest approval ratings in the history of Congress. The republicans are living the high life getting whatever they want while the democrats continue to pander to compromising demands that the repubs keep making like whiney little brats (the president is especially guilty of this). I mean seriously, you want to see change? Pull on your daddy pants and DO THE SAME THING THEY DO. Block legislation until you get what you want. As in, things you don't want to happen (like drilling) or do (like renewable energy).

Gah, just fire them all :p

In response to cybercat it is not the republicans in the way, it is the democrats. The New Energy Reform Act of 2008 was a bipartisan effort that the republicans wanted to pass before the recess, but Pelosi stood in the way. Fifty House Republicans staged a sit-in of sorts on the House floor to protest Speaker Pelosi’s decision to go home for the August recess without a vote on the American Energy Act. Despite the turning off of lights, mics, and CSPAN cameras they spoke to the American public who were seated in the gallery.

And hey are continuing there effort by sitting in the galleries to show a strong presence in the Chamber each day.

The oil companies get to log more reserves on their books, sustaining their RESPECTIVE market cap values.

Politicians get bigger donations for working to give them the leases they want.

The Think Tank experts get more donations from the fossil industry for having provided the intellectual flak.

This is US energy policy, plain and simple.

I would like to raise a question here that I dont believe these oil drilling supporters have even considered. Most of us here already know that further drilling is fruitless. It wont come to the pump in time for it to do us any good. Also I am a resident of North Carolina and I would be nearly inconsolible if drilling on my state's coast was opened up due to the environmental effects. But one thing i want to talk about is the weather that we recieve in this part of the country. Here in the Southeast Atlantic and Gulf Coasts we recieve nearly all (if not all) of the classified hurricanes in the US. We all saw what happened to our oil prices when Katrina rolled through the gulf oil fields. Besides the environmental risks associated with lining the 'Hurricane Coasts' with drilling rigs, what do these politicians and oil proponents think will happen IF we were to become reliant on domestic oil, if a majority is coming from these areas. What happens when the next Katrina comes through? What will McCain be saying dozens of rigs are demolished by a single storm? How long would it take to recover. Despite ALL the environmental effects and the ethics of continuing a completely unsustainable energy problem, I just dont see how the rewards outweigh the risks

Anyone waiting around for the US government to help lower the price of gasoline has got to be kidding themselves! First of all, what is a "lower" price? And what will that "lower" price be tomorrow - today's price?

Drill drill drill !!

Or just engage in Nancy Pelosi style hystrionics and ignore the issue all together ... no you can't vote on ANWR and offshore drilling, ... so much for a democracy. Now put out that light!

Even if the oil doesn't all go here, it will increase global supply. "Rich" oil companies supply jobs as well. Apple does well, Google does well, Hell Toyota is number 1 now I guess that makes them the anti-Christ.

I guess it's more prudent to let other nations drill off our shores and reap any possible benefits.

Yes, we should stop building oil rigs altogether, after all there is no steel industry here to support this.
Oh and of course heaven forbid we get a few more refineries going. We don't need those jobs right? People are making plenty of money flipping houses.

Yes, send a message to all the traders out there that we won't do a thing to increase oil supply at all. I think the renewable energy industries rely on oil to manufacture the various energy saving goodies we all crave.

Well, there won't be much need for oil overseas, just look at those ahead-of-the-curve Iranians building peaceful nuclear power.

Let's just stick our heads in the tar sands and everything bad will just go away. Let everyone else take all the oil they want, we don't need any more, we have enough.

Drill drill drill !!

vsk

The question was: "Should supporters of renewable energy essentially ‘throw a bone’ to oil companies and their supporters, so that we can move ahead critical renewable energy promotion legislation?"

The answer is probably no. Republicans are politically stronger than Democrats, because they're so uncompromising, whereas by nature people like Obama who are reasonably minded can be pragmatic enough to compromise on issues. It drives me nuts, and it's been happening for years. Look at all the caving the Clinton administration did to Newt's Contract with America. Look at the last 7 years of the Bush administration. Bush never compromised. He never caved. And people always talk about how principled he is, even today.

The fact that people on the left tend to see things in shades of gray rather than in black and white makes them vulnerable to charges of flip-flopping (even though in reality Bush has flip flopped more than what you might see on Venice Beach on the 4th of July.)

I think it’d be better to take a hardline position publicly and then cave when the rubber actually meets the road the way republicans do all the time (as evidenced by the fact that sometimes, every once in a great while, decent legislation gets through). But I think people like Obama are too scared about what happened to Jimmy Carter to ever do that. It’s a shame, because I think people are hungry for that kind of leadership. Even when they don’t agree with it.

President Bush recently lifted the executive ban on drilling. Since then gas prices dropped nearly 30 cents a gallon. Now don't freak out on me!!! Lifting the ban will reduce the price of gasoline (Notice I didn't say drilling). This is because the hedgers have some much control over the price of gasoline and the hegders jump back at the prospect of drilling. The hedgers have been making loads of cash on artificially inflating the prices. While the oil companies are making huge profits, the hedgers are the ones keeping the price at the pump so high. This is not to say whether or not we should drill, it's just to say that hedgers are causing a lot of problems.

Well, it's stupid to think that doing nothing will lower energy prices and end the energy crisis. Yes, everyone, including McCain ,agrees that the U.S. needs to become energy independent and that renewable sources of energy need to be developed. So off-shore drilling, in concert with other proposals and incentives for developing renewable energy resources, is a part of implementing the solution. Although any new oil discovered by off-shore drilling will not come on line for several years, it will impact energy prices in the short-term, which is based on the speculation of future prices. Although prices will not fall drastically, at least it will discourage prices from skyrocketing like they have recently.

Please stay educated: NHTSA Hearings 8/4/08

Americans need to know.

I just returned from the NHTSA hearings held today (August 4, 2008) in Washington D.C., regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for NEW Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (CAFÉ) for years 2011-2015.

IMPORTANT FACTS: You will not believe what you are reading.

1) The 414 pages DEIS analysis was based on an average gasoline price of USD $2.16/gallon for 2011-2020. A calculation approved by the NHTSA administrators/managers. Would you believe it???????????

2) The new CAFÉ rules were also established, negotiated and pre-approved by the NHTSA’s management along with the influence of domestic automotive companies and their lobbyists. We have now established fuel standards for 2011-2020 that presently met in the rest of the Western world (see below)
As one guest speaker said today “are they on another planet?”

NHTSA “NEW Fuel Standards” (2011-2015) decision:

Automobiles are to achieve 31.2 mpg by 2011 and 35.7 mpg by 2015. Light trucks are to achieve 25 mpg by 2011, and 28.6 mpg by 2015.

The NTHSA is also setting a goal of 35 mpg on average for 2020.

America needs to know:

The European Union is currently establishing standards, with a goal of reaching 48.9 miles per gallon for new passenger vehicles as early as 2012. The current EU standard already requires more than 40 miles per gallon about 15% higher than the U.S. goal set for 12 years from now.

Japan currently has a standard of about 40 miles per gallon. Japan aims to further improve fuel efficiency by 17% by 2015, reaching 46.9 miles per gallon.

China has a current average of slightly under 35 miles per gallon. Chinese fuel standards are on target to reach the government’s goal of 35.8 miles per gallon by 2009. China will not only meet, but exceed, the goal just established by the United States for 2020 — more than a full decade earlier.

Australia is targeting 34.4 miles per gallon by 2010.

Canada is targeting 34.1 miles per gallon by 2010.

Under the current administration, purchasing an electric vehicle is becoming more of a necessity rather than an alternative.
BG Automotive Group, Ltd. (www.BGelectricCars.com)

Should the Dems throw a bone?

As much as it makes me sick to accomodate the Republicans, I say yes, because the end was justified by the means.

With the credits in place, the new energy economy will take off immediately and the Dems can claim that they were the ones that made it happen. What will the Republicans claim? Nothing for years.

Also, let's think for a second as to what affect the latent production will have. US oil production is in decline. While statements have been made that these offshore areas will increase production by 2% or something like that, keep in mind that it's 2% on top of a declining starting point. The fossil fuel era is ending.

One side point that does not relate to your question. I wish that the Dems had called the Republican's bluff and said "OK, you say you want to increase PRODUCTION right? OK, let's do that, and we'll tax that production so much that no one will make any real profits. If you (Republicans) balk at that proposal, then the public will know that it was never about production, it was always about profits."

Good compromise since Big Oil cannot guarantee that the East Coast states will endorse offshore drilling. I was born and raised in virginia. It will never happen. The Mayor of Virginia Beach and the Navy are against it. I can only imagine NC, SC, GA anf FL.

I'm a little torn on this. On one hand, going after more oil is a stupid idea because it's not a renewable resource - we'd just be delaying the inevitable switch to fossil fuel alternatives.

On the other hand, it will take so long to get oil out of those fields that it might never be burned to produce energy - we might come up with alternatives before then, especially if we use the lease payments from the oil companies to fund research.

Negotiation is a part of political life. But we broker a good deal only when we negotiate from a position of strength. The pro-oil forces have successfully framed the debate around this issue so far. Those of us who want to move beyond oil need to do a better job of offering the American people alternatives. Why not call the Republicans' bluff: Let's vote on higher gas mileage standards, as the post above suggests. Let's vote on alternative fuels (but please, god, not corn-based ethanol). Let's vote on public transportation. Let's vote on a national renewable electricity standard. Let's vote on a crash program to help homeowners and businesses conserve energy before the next winter. Then, we can vote on offshore drilling, but we'll already have saved more oil than we'll ever get from the OCS, no?

As its impossible to give the oil, if an, to the oil companies and expect they can lower prices in the US without lowering the cost to China of its oil subsidies.

But if we take a page from nearly every other nation and enter into production agreements with revenue sharing with the oil companies doing the work to provide incntives for maximizing production, as Saudi Arabia does, the revenues for OUR oil will be higher and those revenues can be distributed to the owners of the oil, the American citizens, so WE can benefit from OUR oil.

If Republicans believe the government should give or sell cheaply OUR oil and gas, then I call on them to support legislation that allows the government to set the rates and sell off the oil and gas rights of private land owners on the same terms. If anyone thinks We the People are getting the best deal for OUR oil and gas possible, then let's force those terms on everyone ownng oil and gas.

What if people 20 years ago said we should not drill for any new oil or natural gas? What if OPEC nations decided not to drill for oil 30 years ago. What if we decided not to drill for oil in northern Alaska 30 years ago, we would have nothing.

Oil drilling/exploration is going on as we speak. It slowed down but has accelerated lately. You can go to EIA.com and look at the drilling activity reports.

No, it will not drop prices. All oil / gas exploration, drilling, and ultimate production is very expensive. We will see variations in oil prices like we always have, but the trend will increase.

I am for drilling, particularly for natural gas. We have to continue to replace the wells that are running out, otherwise we can look forward to sending more and more money out of our Country. On the other hand those, getting out of oil in a big way is extremely import, and emergency. Our economy is taking it on the chin because of our constant export of US money. Saudi is planning on building 5 new cities in the next decade. Guess who is paying for it, you are.

Let's all embrace conservation, efficiency, alternative energy, and some drilling.

I think we should also STOP ALL PHARMACEUTICAL TESTING AND MEDICAL RESEARCH.

After all, we won't see any benefit for at least ten years!

Doesn't that argument sound silly?

Also, as mentioned above, we don't even need to actually do any drilling! When President Bush rescinded Executive Orders, just the threat of drilling caused world prices to plummet. No acknowledgement of this in the press anywhere.

I am not one for off shore drilling. World production has dropped, prices have fallen because people are conserving and driving only when necessary therefore lowering demand. Those of you who say drilling will drop gas prices I ask you this. If gas prices dropped a dollar a gallon would we still drive less? Would drivers still conserve like they are now? I dont think so. Lowering prices will only increase demand because people will have the illusion that they can drive more.

Great article!

[...]But here’s the half-empty: offshore drilling is not a solution, it’s not even a quick fix - it’s a mistake, plain and simple. The only thing it has to offer is false hope and more environmental damage.[...]

The Republican/Big Oil spin machine wants to pull the wool over our eyes again. They insist that high gas prices are a reason to lift the "ban" on offshore drilling. But, they don't tell you that there is no "ban" on drilling. There is however, a moratorium on issuing new drilling leases.
A report released by the House Committe on Natural Resources cites that from 1999-2007, drilling permits issued increased by 361%. Only about 27% of federal land leases and 24% of offshore leases are being drilled. Leaving about 68,000,000 acres worth of leases unused. If energy companies put these into use, domestic oil production would nearly double and natural gas production would increase by 75%. Per the report, "...according to the Minerals Management Service, of all the oil and gas believed to exist on the Outer Continental Shelf, 82% of the natural gas and 79% of the oil is located in areas that are currently open for leasing."
So, why do Republicans insist that Big Oil should get more leases to stockpile? I suspect it's because Big Oil wants to lock those leases into their into their ownership to keep anyone else from having access, drilling and putting more supply onto the market which would decrease their bottom line. Its a government subsidized/free market model. The taxpayer pays at the pump no matter what and also allows the gifts of public owned leases to big oil, which they don't develope so prices can go up higher. Big oil is in a win-win-win situation and Republicans like John McCain, etc. will allow it to get campaign donations. And of course, the corporate owned media that sponsors "news" on television won't report the statistics. American citizens need to use discernment and critical thinking skills if they want to make an informed decision on what to believe. To just swallow the corporate media's "news" without thinking is a detriment to this nation.

If we could put a man on the moon "in ten years", or gear up to win WWII in four years I think we have the know how to get offshore drilling, coal shale production, more nuclear plants, AND alternative energy ideas moving ALL AT THE SAME TIME. OPEC would quickly drop prices just to try and dissuade us, and as our new energy supplies came on line those prices would drop even more drastically. Thank god the country didn't have the "liberal dilemna" in 1941 it does now or we'd still be debating how to respond to Pearl Harbor. To most of the respondents on this website their biggest challenge in life, to date, has been having to moving out of mom and dad's house at 27.

Drill Here, Drill Now, Lower Gas Prices - AND explore every other alternative energy source we can muster. Be that Wind, Water, Nuclear, Solar, you name it.... I'm all for GREEN, but not at the expense of permanently trading in my car for a bicycle.

With our national debt at $9.7 Trillion and the US GDP of $13.2 Trillion (that's about %75 or our GDP) and with the run of natural disasters, the failing of large banks and financial institutions, where will the money come from to finance any reasonable response to the energy problem?

Would 20% of our GDP for the next 30 years be an adequate response?

It seems to me that any effort to develop more non-renewable sources of energy is effort diverting resources from the ultimate solution. Still, we'll have to live through the transition by burning oil, coal, gas, etc. So it seems that this is an optimization problem where we ask the question "How fast can we make this transition so as to minimize the cost of foreign oil and the usage of carbon-based fuels?".

We already have demonstrations of alternative energy systems and some operational systems in hand. So, it seems that we should build new production facilities as fast as possible. One possibility is to build "breeder plants", those are plants that first get themselves running on their own products while at the same time and there after reproduce themselves on a regular basis. Such systems can grow exponentially so long as resources and materials are available.

With a bankrupt government, both presidential candidates face the same dilemma and seem to avoid the discussion of Who's going to pay the bill, or does it just add to the national debt?