Bush to Lift Ban on Off-Shore Drilling

President Bush will be back in the Rose Garden today, this time to issue an executive order that lifts the ban on off-shore drilling.

The ban, in place since his father was President, will need Congressional approval to take effect.

Democrats say they are for drilling, but argue that oil companies aren't going after the oil where they already have leases. So why open new, protected areas? they ask. Democrats say there are 68 million acres of federal land and waters where oil and gas companies hold leases, but aren't producing oil.

....Democrats support more drilling," [Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen] said. "In fact, what the president hasn't told you is that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands with the potential to nearly double U.S. oil production. That is why in the coming days congressional Democrats will vote on 'Use It or Lose It' legislation requiring the big oil companies to develop these resources or lose their leases to someone else who will."


Van Hollen added:

"We cannot drill our way to energy independence."

That reminds me of a statement I frequently write,
"We can't jail ourselves out of our criminal justice problem." The question: Is more drilling a bad idea, a bandaid, like a piece of tape placed over a nail hole on a flat tire or a stepping stone to a solution?

Update: Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette on President Bush's order:

“President Bush’s plan is flawed and misguided. It will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence – two things our country and the American consumer desperately need.

“If he really wants to provide relief from high gas prices in the short term, the President must release a portion of the more than 700 million barrels of oil we have put in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is the first step in bringing prices down quickly. Longer term, need to work hard to wean ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil.”

< Obama v. McCain on Iraq Policy | Obama to Visit Israel and West Bank Next Week >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The administration (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:50:46 AM EST
    admitted that this won't effect prices so I gotta believe it's political cover for republicans. RNC is hitting Democratic incumbents with "they didn't do anything to reduce gas prices" so this would seem consistent. Another wiz bang bit of republican logic, but it gives them hope. Sad, isn't it.

    Well (none / 0) (#23)
    by nell on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:41:40 PM EST
    it's working. I was out of town this weekend at a family wedding and everyone was talking about gas prices, and I heard more than one person say that they didn't understand why the Democrats keep saying no to everything and wondering why they couldn't understand that people were really hurting at the pump...the narrative is taking hold.

    Whatever happened to that electric car (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:52:05 AM EST
    that proved to be pretty damn great...I think it was called the EV.  Remember they recalled them all and wouldn't let anyone buy one.  Heaven forbid we don't let the oil and car companies get rich off the sweat of our backs.  Remember the car manufactured by Tucker?  Way ahead of it's time, but shot down by the car companies...and we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot...

    they buried them in the desert (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:57:36 AM EST
    see this film

    Who Killed The Electric Car

    they were great.  pretty amazing actually.  when I worked at Disney a friend had one.  they only leased them.


    Capt....which desert? We have to do (none / 0) (#20)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:11:40 PM EST
    something....and thanks for the link.

    the Nevada desert (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:45:41 PM EST
    but it wont do any good to find them they crushed them first.

    The usual end for a defective product (none / 0) (#42)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:25:07 PM EST
    The usual end for a defective product.  There was a liability issue problem with battery.  On top of that, the market for a vehicle with only a 60 to 90 mile range before an 8 hour 220 volt recharge is really limited.  

    Damn!! :) (none / 0) (#52)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:46:39 PM EST
    Exactly, (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:04:11 PM EST
    The key to saving the planet is Elec Cars!

    Did you not click Jeralyn's advertiser's link?

    All over Appalachia, coal companies are blowing up mountains and dumping mining waste in our streams.  And until we do something about it, it's LEGAL.   It's time for Congress to stand up for what's right and put a stop to the devastation of our rivers, streams and headwaters.
    In case it's not clear, about 50% of our elec comes from burning coal...

    that doesnt mean it has to (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:52:06 PM EST
    there are plenty of other sources of electricity.

    All good, as far as I'm concerned. (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:47:40 PM EST
    I'm all for more nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, bio, etc., elec power generation.

    No nukes, but everything else (none / 0) (#137)
    by splashy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:09:51 PM EST
    Sounds good.

    Too much deadly waste that lasts far too long with nuclear.


    Nimby-ism.... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:25:35 PM EST
    So we wanna suck up oil and gasoline like a crackhead suckin' on the pipe, but we don't wanna see any rigs off the coast.  Or windmills.

    The choice is clear, drill for more oil and accept the accompanying pollution as a cost of our high on the hog living, or get our collective arses off the oil...we can't have our cake and eat it too.  I'd prefer we forget the drills and go gung-ho towards alternatives, but it's gotta be one or the other...not neither.

    Alternatives (none / 0) (#33)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:06:29 PM EST

    The reason Alternatives are alternative is because they are more costly.  More costly means a lower standard of living for everyone, with the poor hurt the most.  

    We have a market economy.  A market economy will always choose (be addicted to) the lowest cost energy option.  The other more costly options will be alternative.  The only option out there that has a chance to compete with hydrocarbon fuel is nuke.  


    Alternatives may be more costly now, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:21:14 PM EST
    but what about when gas gets in the $5/6/7 per gallon range?

    In the meantime,  you should check out this article in Fast Company called Motorhead Messiah about a mechanic in Nebraska who can rejigger a Lincoln Continental to get 100 mpg, cut emissions by 80%, and double the horsepower: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html


    OK (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:26:31 PM EST
    So he's gonna use a turbine as the mechanical engine for a hybrid..

    He may want to talk to the EPA about that thing called "pollution."


    You can't have read that article already, (none / 0) (#48)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:37:59 PM EST
    its something like 6 pages long.

    Hummers and 1960 Lincoln continentals that get from 80-100 mpg on bio-diesel? He's making 'em now with something like 95% standard parts. He next wants to move on to zero emission vehicles, if I recall correctly.  


    I'm all for it (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:53:35 PM EST
    I just don't believe it is that simple or GM would be doing it.

    Trust me. I worked for corporations for 40 years. They will do anything to save money and have a great new product.

    It is the nature of the beast.

    BTW - Turbines are not known to be great on fuel savings. Basically they idle around 90% of max and the battery question wasn't answered.

    But I'll read it again.


    Do me a favor. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:03:57 PM EST
    Don't leave another stupid comment about this article until you read it in full. Especially the part about how the engineers at GM pored over one of his retooled Hummers at a car show, telling him that their bosses told them that what he was doing in his Nebraska garage wasn't possible.

    I'm tired of hearing from people like you what can't be done...


    Do me a favor (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:46:10 PM EST
    Don't leave another remark to me with the word stupid in it and I might pay you some attention.

    And don't believe that just because something can be hand engineered it can be mass produced at a mass market price.

    If it is too good to be true it usually is.


    Jim, (none / 0) (#75)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:18:11 PM EST
    it's his first energy crisis.

    That's funny (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:10:02 PM EST
    and probably true....

    I remember the 70s (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:33:11 PM EST
    very well, thanks.

    Come on now.... (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:27:18 PM EST
    PBS specials don't count!

    Why not both?? (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:22:17 PM EST
    Even teenagers can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.

    The oil companies can drill and the innovators can do the alternative stuff.


    You're right.... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:28:34 PM EST
    I should have said either or both....anything but neither.

    The nimby-ism has got to stop...unless you don't use petroleum-based products you have no moral leg to stand on if you oppose drilling.  As a nature lover I don't wanna see oil derricks off my shoreline, but I also wanna be able to fill my car and heat my home...the old catch-22.  It's not righteous to demand others live amongst the pollution and eyesores of the oil gathering business while I reap the benefits.  


    How is drilling going to lower prices at the pump (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:48:32 PM EST
    or to heat your home?  How long do you think it will take to get this offshore oil to refineries? -- you won't see gas/oil prices fall anytime soon, if at all.  Americans aren't the only consumers of oil/gas and so oil prices are determined on the international market.  And each barrel is goes to the highest international bidder.

    The annoucement will scare (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:19:46 PM EST
    the speculators. They need a little panic in their grubby lives.

    As for how long? Forever if we never start.


    I don't know.... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    but I don't have any other ideas besides intsalling a wood-burning stove and driving less.  I'm confident I will survive one way or the other.

    If we're gonna continue to use oil in the future we need to drill for it...I don't see any other way around it.  And I don't see why people overseas and in rural areas here at home should have to bear the brunt of the pollution while the people in Cali, FLA, Mass, and NY get to keep their precious view.  If we are all gonna use oil we should all deal with the nasty side effects.


    You might be interested in this (none / 0) (#73)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:02:47 PM EST
    article by Mike Tidwell: Forget Kyoto. Mike Tidwell explains how he and his family cut emissions by 96 percent in their own home.

    It's here, but you'll have to scroll down to find it...


    Let me see (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:39:16 PM EST
    He got a government grant and a tax credit... That isn't exactly man in nature.... Someone burned carbon making that money. He reminds me of someone who can't stand to slaughter a beef but likes to tell us how to save......

    Look.. When I redid the Palatial Retirement Compound, Catfish Farm and BBQ Stand, I put in CFL's, high efficiency, etc and etc...including massive insulation, etc., etc.... thermal hot water heating in my area has a pay back of over 10 years, so that's out...

    As for his electric supply... I take it he has a battery system for night service and cloudy days?? No? Then he reverts back to the grid.

    Guess what. The grid has to be the exact same capacity as if he was never off of it, because it must be engineered/constructed as if he is always there in the event he is to ever be there.

    That's a difficult concept for non-engineers to understand, but try.

    As for his corn stove.... 400 pounds corn will produce 2.7 gallons of ethanol or feed a third world adult for one year.

    I hope he enjoys being warm and toasty while others hunger...


    In many cities, such as Denver (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:15:14 PM EST
    you can't burn wood on certain days....

    Sorry. Just freeze like a greenie!!



    You think I'm gonna.... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:56:59 PM EST
    check my local codes?  Pfft...how long we been bantering on TL ol' pal?

    Agree (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:43:53 PM EST
    Sadly the facts are that there is TANSTAAFL.

    There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. So said Robert Heinlein and he was right.

    All of the alternatives have problems that most people don't address. How do you distribute the great new whatever to the waiting masses?

    Ethanol requires a lot cleaner pipes, trucks and tanks.

    Natural Gas can be piped to new service stations, but must be stored and transferred under pressure from the station to the car...

    Hydrogen is the same...

    Electrical power will require a doubling of the grid, no matter how it is generated.... solar, wind, nuke, coal, water...

    Fact is, petroleum won the race because it has the most advantages. To me the answer is hybrids. Using the Prius as an example, you can see a 50MPG fleet average. That is about 2.4 from where we are.

    Wonder if GM is smart enough to do do a crash program??? Well, they did last time with front wheel drive and the X cars.. Took about 3 years and that had more problems than going to hybrids. The real problem will be getting their suppliers on board with the new components.


    They (none / 0) (#58)
    by tek on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:54:35 PM EST
    can't drill or explore drilling unless Congress gives the go-ahead.

    Bad idea that is now popular with voters (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:47:41 PM EST
    Rasmussen says that in the wake of $4/gallon gas, 67% of Americans support it.

    This puts Obama in a real bind, post-FISA. Another flip-flop like that one and the washington press corpse will eat him for lunch...  

    PS: I just read somewhere that no matter, Cali says no offshore drilling off its coastline, that it doesn't want it to end up like Alaska's.  If Bush says he wants to allow  drilling of the coast of Cali, can Arnold tell him to go suck wind?

    No (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:20:27 PM EST
    he can't

    he may tell him that with 4 dollar gas (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:51:01 PM EST
    what about 5 dollar gas?
    or 7 dollar gas?
    think he will tell  him to suck wind then.  I think not.

    Of course Arnold can, any governor can. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:02:30 PM EST
    They answer to residents of their state. Tourism is still a very important industry there, and a spill like the Exxon Valdez could cause them unimaginable financial hardship. Likely why pols in Cali say offshore drilling is very unpoular with their constituents (in response to McCain's suggestion that we leave it up to the states affected to allow/continue to disallow offshore drilling.)  

    of course? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:14:45 PM EST

    I've read that the oil companies (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:03:37 PM EST
    routinely underreport the amount they take from those leases on public land. So, giving them more leases will just magnify the theft. Rip us off when they drill, then rip us off at the pump. Yippee!

    Got a link? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:46:01 PM EST
    for this?

    McCain Lies About Oil Spills (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by john horse on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:22:14 PM EST
    As I mentioned in an earlier post, John McCain has said that there were no oil spills as a result of Katrina and Rita.  This is a lie.  The oil spills after Katrina were second only to the 11-million gallon Exxon Valdez spill in 1989.  See here and here and here.

    One of the most valuable resources in Florida is its pristine beaches.  Why should we risk that in order to feed our addiction to oil?  Why do supporters of off-shore drilling have to resort to lying?  

    Gee (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:26:26 PM EST
    I sure don't  remember hearing about it....

    You expect me to believe the Left let that slide for  3 years.

    Fact is it did no significant damage to your beloved environment.

    Me? I'll take people over birds any day of the week.


    John Horse provided documentation (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:43:31 PM EST
    for his claims, and this is your response? I'm sorry I ever bothered with you on this thread. You are nothing more than a troll, and a pretty ill-informed one at that.

    I used Squeak's sources (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:01:52 PM EST
    Are you saying they are incorrect?

    And trolls are always those we disagree with...

    Isn't it funny how that works out??

    Let me see. I'll try one more time.

    Do you own a car? Do you drive to work??

    Goes to motive, your honor..

    In the meantime, you never told me how that dude was  running his house on photo cells at night... or how that dude was going to pass EPA inspection  on his car...

    All you have done is object to us taking positive steps toward lowering gasoline prices and saving the economy. This is deadly serious to the elderly who are on a fixed income. It is deadly serious to the poor who drive gas hogs long distances for low paying jobs. This is deadly serious to those in the travel industry who are seeing their jobs dry up and being blown away in the jet blast of elitist Demos such as Obama, who has told us:

    "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." Obama added: "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

    It is deadly serious to the middle class who see their jobs slipping under seas of red ink.. It is deadly serious to everyone except the wealthy or who live in an area with usable public transportation....

    Know what? I'm sorry I wasted time on you. Some people can't be helped. Remind me to give you a subscription to Mother Jones for Xmas.


    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:19:10 PM EST
    Squeak's sources? Reread what I wrote, you bonehead! Geez,  you are not very bright, either. Anyway, I hope you've enjoyed the attention. And on that note, goodbye troll.

    Ah yes, the compleat Leftie (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:48:11 PM EST
    Can't win a debate, no sense of humor so always collapses into personal attacks.

    I have been commenting here since before you were in  Middle School my dear JohnS. So I have learned that it is necessary to repeat what I wrote.

    I took Squeaky's sources, opened one... it takes an Adobe Reader btw ... copied and placed in my comment..

    Evidently that is too complex for such a shallow mine as you demonstrate. Yes, I do think that SUO was right. This is your first oil crisis. Unlike the other ones, this one is Democrat made. There is no shortage.

    BTW - Did you know that it is estimated that Rocky Mountain area oil shale can provide us 2 trillion barrels of oil??? That's double what the world has used since day 1.



    Your Hearing Problem (none / 0) (#113)
    by john horse on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:18:31 PM EST
    is caused by you hearing only what you want to hear and see what you want to see.

    So when you say

    Fact is it (Katrina) did no significant damage to your beloved environment.

    it is because you believe that
    Not one drop (of oil) was spilled during Katrina...or Rita..



    Is there somethin you didn't (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:52:01 PM EST
    understand from the sources Squeaky provided?

    Hurricane Katrina was a category 5 hurricane when it entered the OCS, destroying 46 platforms
    and damaging 20 others, making landfall on August 29, 2005. Katrina's path is the easterly one
    in Figure 9. There were about 211 minor pollution incidents reported to the MMS. Minor
    pollution incidents are categorized as incidents involving less than 500 barrels of oil that do not
    reach the coast line.

    GLad TO See (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:53:40 PM EST
    That you are retracting your wingnut talking point.

    Not one drop was spilled during Katrina...or Rita.

    It must hurt to admit that you were lying.


    You continue to be unable to act in a civilized (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:23:33 AM EST

    Quoting someone else is not a lie. You understand that, so your actions are really unforgivable.

    But as you told us:

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    You are who you are, Squeak. But you really should seek some help and try morph back into the mainstream of society.


    BS (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:21:21 PM EST
    Quoting a lie is lying. Especially when it is in the form of right wing propaganda coming from such a prominent (cough cough0 GOP blogger such as yourself.

    Not one drop was spilled during Katrina...or Rita.

    Or are you accepting the role of acting like a parrot. No offense to all the parrots out there.


    Worse Than The Worst Case Scenario (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by john horse on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:21:37 PM EST
    If significant amounts of oil were spilled during Katrina, and you are not arguing that it was not, then significant damage was done to the environment.  

    If you don't believe me,

    "This is about the tenth disaster I have responded to, and this is the worst I have ever seen," said Wally Cooper, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's on-scene coordinator, in charge of overseeing the Murphy Oil spill cleanup. "This is worse than the worst-case scenario."

    My take on it is this. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:11:12 PM EST
    George Bush's time is short so he and Dick Cheney are feathering their nests as fast as they can. You got to believe that George, Dick, and their Big Oil buddies are throwing around the money in a dozen different ways to the Democrats as well as the Republicans testing the limits of their greed as fast as they can. Even with all the undrilled acreage that they already have, they are hungry for more. The shameless greed of these people knows no limits.

    The GWB administration (4.75 / 4) (#1)
    by vigkat on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:24:02 AM EST
    Has wanted this for a long time.  Now, conveniently, it seems possible to accomplish a goal they otherwise probably could not have accomplished. Master manipulators.  I hope the Dems hang tough on this one, but I'm not holding my breath.

    There are literally billions (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:39:14 PM EST
    of dollars that have gone missing under this administrations watch. If memory serves, in "The Shock Doctrine" Naomi Klein argues that it slipped away into the hands of the Iraqis. I've heard others argue this as well. I have never believed it. Far too many good people have sold their own souls to this administration. Just one case in point among many I could mention: Michael Mukasey was a man of honor until he became DOJ. You can see it in his face as he sits at congressional hearings; it's tearing him apart. He was already wealthy. His price had to have been very high.

    Looks like the Repubs (4.75 / 4) (#2)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:24:25 AM EST
    are stepping over themselves.  Some Repubs are moving to alternative energy and they are trying to grab oil assets before alternatives are in a position to be competitive.  T Boone Pickens says we can't drill our way out of this and is 'going directly to the people' with a plan and is building the largest wind farm in Texas.  

    Getting off foreign oil, is a national security issue for me.  Getting off oil is an environmental issue for me. I'm partial to wind and solar myself.

    Pickens says if the entire state of North (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:39:04 AM EST
    Dakota was planted with windmills, the resulting energy would supply the entire U.S.  Not a pretty visual though.

    there is a giant windfarm (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:41:42 AM EST
    outside LA.  it is one of the coolest things in the world to drive though.  its like some Cristo art project.

    There's one farther north also (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:48:09 AM EST
    I personally think they are pretty cool to look at. Much better than oil rigs.

    Visual blight, IMO. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:43:00 AM EST
    And I did go to NY specifically so see the Christos's Gates.

    completely disagree (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:43:53 AM EST
    I think they are amazing to look at.
    have you ever seen a large installation?

    Yes, beside the I-10 driving to Palm Springs. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:44:58 AM EST
    On flat land they are cool. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:57:26 PM EST
    On mountains, they are death to birds and bats. Also, ugly. We are fighting them here because they want to build them on the ridgelines.

    The new ones are NOT death to birds and bats (none / 0) (#136)
    by splashy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:55:35 PM EST
    That is an outmoded idea. The new big ones move slowly enough that birds and bats can easily avoid them.

    Personally, given the choice between coal, nuclear or wind, I would gladly choose wind, or solar.


    btw (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:52:25 PM EST
    many would say (and do say) that about Cristo.
    not me though.

    Cristo... (none / 0) (#120)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:44:01 PM EST
    Actually I think they look much nicer than Cristo.

    We have them in NE PA (none / 0) (#19)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:09:14 PM EST
    On Carbondale Mtn, they majestically stand. So cool up close. The energy goes to Florida I believe.

    didnt see this (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:40:33 AM EST
    before I posted the downthread comment.
    I am starting to like this guy a lot.  I know very little about his politics but I know that commercial looks like a campaign commercial.
    seems to late to be launching an indy campaign though.

    Of course we (4.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:22:19 PM EST
    won't drill ourselves to energy independance, but it is one of the things we can do to help.  Couple that with more nukes, more refineries, Windpower that Kennedy and Kerry are trying to stop, solar they all will help.

    Kerry is trying to stop them as well? (none / 0) (#24)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:44:22 PM EST
    yup (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:44:50 PM EST
    And now... for the rest of the story. (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:52:29 PM EST
    But don't they have one windfarm already? And aren't Kerry, et al. trying to determine the benefit in dollars of the first before investing in a second? Read the Comments below the article that you cite.

    Drilling for more oil obviously won't fix (none / 0) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:31:55 AM EST
    our situation. But I've seen the projections for growth in alternatve energy over the net 30 years. And the numbers ain't good. America isn't the only problem, the rapid growth in China creates a great demand for energy. Drilling for more oil is like using a garden hose to fill a drought ravaged resevoir. Me do it becuase it's something, but it's not enough.

    does anyone know the answer??? (none / 0) (#4)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:32:56 AM EST
    The implication I get from reading this is that dems are saying that oil companies ALREADY have leases both onshore and OFFshore that are available for them to drill and they are not drilling.  And, the republicans are saying that leases oil companies already hold for OFFshore locations CAN'T be drilled because of the offshore ban.

    So, which is true?  Do the oil companies already hold offshore leases that they could already drill without lifting the ban or not?

    Do the oil companies only want the ban lifted so that they can buy NEW offshore leases?

    Oil company leases (none / 0) (#57)
    by wasabi on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:53:58 PM EST
    Both arguments are bogus.  The value of an oil company is determined by their net reserves.  They always want additional reserves.  The present problem is capacity.  Most reserves are in deep water and the lead time to build a deep water drilling ship to get to the oil is now 6 years.  All shipbuilding ports around the world are building ships as fast as they can.  5 years ago there wasn't the huge demand for oil, the price was low and an investment in drilling was something the oil companies found unappealing (golly gee, the quarterly stock price would have taken a hit).  

    The major oil companies are moving away from land based oil extraction because of the instabilities and uncertainties caused by going into the known reserve countries.  See Nigeria.  See Sudan.  See South America.  The investment $$ doesn't want to risk their capital going to a country that may want to nationalize the industry at some time in the future.  Bad for business (quarterly profit).

    My husband is in the oil business and travels around the world to inspect ships before they move to their deep water location.  He knows about these things.


    thanks for the info but it doesn't... (none / 0) (#64)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:20:57 PM EST
    really answer my question.

    Can the oil comapnies drill OFFshore on the OFFshore leases they already have?  Or, does the ban stop them from doing it?


    Yes they can drill (none / 0) (#85)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:57:08 PM EST
    link"I want to know why big oil companies have yet to drill in the 39 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico already available to them."

    "I want to know how drilling is being proposed as `the answer' when drilling had increased by 66 percent since 2000 yet gas prices have gone up by 220 percent."

    Also  [79 Percent of Recoverable Offshore Oil Is Open to Drilling ...82 Percent of Recoverable Offshore Natural Gas Is Open to Drilling.]

    and Fact: There are 68 million acres onshore and offshore in the U.S. that are leased by oil companies--open to drilling and actually under lease--but not developed.

    There is discussion that oil companies won't drill if they are forced to keep in on the US market.  They want the right to take it to the global market for the most profit, so it will have very little effect on the world price as OPEC would production adjust down.

    There is also an abundance of natural gas available.


    this is pretty much a quote (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:34:01 AM EST
    from the T. Boone Pickens energy independence campaign:

    "We cannot drill our way to energy independence."


    somehow a life long oil man saying it gives it more umph.

    Somnehow an oil man (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:28:54 PM EST
    who is investing millions and millions into wind power saying it makes it more....welllllll...


    Yeah that's it. I mean why would he have an ax to grind??


    Pickens is selling something alright..... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Rojas on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:00:03 PM EST
    consider it a cheap education. It's not a wise policy to burn NG to create electicity. It's only a little less short sighted than burning diesel for the same purpose.

    Let see... (none / 0) (#10)
    by bocajeff on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:43:01 AM EST
    Oil companies already have the leases but don't want to drill on them, but want new leases so they can drill. Either they are dumb as dirt or their is something missing from this equation.

    T. Boone is a huge investor in wind and that's why he's pushing it. I believe in wind but think we are a long way away from it.

    Like it or not we are in an oil world for now and need oil. You think this is bad wait 5 years for when the rest of India and China make it to the middle class...It's going to be insane.

    I would assume... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:05:55 PM EST
    ... that the leases the oil companies already hold but aren't drilling are less cost-effective than the potential offshore sites. Every site is likely to have a different oil price at which it's feasible to drill.

    Play Harball with lying Fascists! OMG! (none / 0) (#16)
    by seabos84 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:56:20 AM EST

    Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!

    Imagine an opposition party that fought these lying f#$$s all the time all the way?

    I know, I know ... I sound like I've been listening to 'Lucy in The Sky with Diamonds' and ingesting what the beatles were singing about!


    Maybe so (none / 0) (#34)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:08:45 PM EST

    The days of cheap fuel prices are the subject of history books yet unwritten. We must now actively work to develop alternatives.

    Maybe so, but that is not a reason to restrict the supply today.

    Who's "restricting" supply? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:30:04 PM EST
    That's baloney. Even if the drilling began tomorrow, it would be several years before the new refineries could have any affect on the oil market, so gas prices wouldn't fall anytime soon, if at all. Why?  Because it's the profits that oil companies are all about, and Americans aren't the only consumers of oil/gas.  Oil prices are determined on the international market and each barrel is auctioned off to the highest bidder, whover that is...

    Restrictions on drilling (none / 0) (#61)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:10:57 PM EST

    Restrictions on drilling are restrictions on supply.  Period.  BTW, Exxon buys about 90% of the petroleum it uses from foreign governments.  It is true that there is a world price for oil, and increased supply will lower that price.

    So what if the price does not fall "soon."  Falling later is better than not falling at all.  We won't have economic "alternative fuels" available soon either.  Some of the alternative fuels may not become economic for centuries, and some may never be economic.


    What do you think the price (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:17:23 PM EST
    of oil will be in 10-12 years. Because that's how long it will take this oil to get to market. And even then we're talking about 86 billion barrels of oil offshore, according to the US government's Energy Information Administration. Which sure ain't enough to affect global supply/demand- the world market now consumes about 86 million barrels in one day.

    What are you basing your (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:22:37 PM EST
    time frame on? I said it will take forever if we never start. But where do you get your figures?

    Tell us. Do you own a car? Do you have to commute to work every day?


    That's the estimate from the (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:38:09 PM EST
    American Petroleum Institute. They say it will take 7-10 years for that oil to get to market.

    And what is their guidelines? (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:42:53 PM EST
    No priority? Some priority? A lot of priority?

    Kennedy said we could go the moon and we did it in what, 10 years??

    Somehow I think we can get oil from sunny Catalina to LA in three...

    BTW - Understand something. API doesn't want cheaper oil.


    The SF Chronicle reports (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:46:30 PM EST
    that the U.S. Energy Information Administration has a similar timeline:  it "predicted last year that if the moratorium were lifted, it would take until 2012 to start leasing the areas and until 2017 before oil began to flow. The agency estimated that U.S. oil production would increase by 7 percent - about 200,000 barrels a day - by 2030, which it said would have an "insignificant" impact on oil prices."

    Four years to start leasing! (none / 0) (#77)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:57:22 PM EST

    Four years to start leasing!  At what priority?  As to the increased flow, that is a highly speculative projection, since we really don't know how much oil is there.  

    The flow rate depends on the price.  The higher the price the more marginal areas become profitable to produce.  Do you know what price the USEIA was using for its projection?


    Please see this from the (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:19:27 PM EST
    Your own sources (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:22:55 PM EST
    show about 19 million unavailable based on CURRENT (let's stare and freeze to death) GUIDELINES.

    You've gotta be kidding with this one. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:29:12 PM EST
    19 million is NOTHING. Nada. The world consumes 86 million barrels a day? Are you under some sort of delusion that this offshore oil will be for domestic consumption only? Because it won't be. It'll go on the world market where the oil companies will try to get as much $$$ for it as they can. And Cali and NJ can cross their fingers there are no spills, esp considering what happened last week.

    Oh? What happened last week? (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:35:52 PM EST
    Exxon Mobil initially was determined to owe the people of alaska over 5 billion dollars - on june 25th, the supreme court slashed that award to a fraction of that, at just over 5 million - nearly .01% or 1/1000 of the original award.



    500 million not 5 million (none / 0) (#129)
    by Rojas on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:42:59 AM EST
    That was Billion not million (none / 0) (#128)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:11:21 AM EST
    Bollion with a B

    Please see this from the (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:20:30 PM EST
    He only knows (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:08:51 PM EST
    he wants to elect Obama and send money to OPEC.

    I'm gonna pass on this one. (none / 0) (#98)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:22:31 PM EST
    You should be reading the interesting article I told you about earlier instead of making inane comments like this...

    Of course it will (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:06:52 PM EST
    that is unless some kiss some bureaucratic butts..

    If someone doesn't want to do something they will always find an excuse not to.

    The trick is to fire the excuse makers and hire the doers.

    BTW - The current US usage is around 20 million barrels a day, so 200,000 represents about 1%. More if we conserve.

    Bottom Line - When you are in a soup line you will be happy to work on an oil drilling project.


    Do you have a car? (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:45:12 PM EST
    Do you drive to work?

    Please see my comment to you at (none / 0) (#110)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:57:58 PM EST
    the bottom of this thread.

    I take it that means no. (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:55:35 PM EST
    What're the politics of this? (none / 0) (#35)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:14:15 PM EST
    Seems like Cali's already in the bag for Dems, so this Bush initiative that's virulently opposed there won't hurt McCain much. But Fla? I see Gov Christ supports Bush's initiative, and that 59% of Floridians support offshore drilling (According to both Rasmussen and  Strategic Vision). This could actually help McCain/hurt Obama in Fla???  

    Why not?? (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:19:22 PM EST
    Tell me why drilling will hurt??

    Remember the Exxon Valdez? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:31:53 PM EST
    What do you think a similar spill would do to the economies of, say, California or Florida?

    We haven't had a spill (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:47:36 PM EST
    such as that for longer than most on this blog has been alive...The trick being not to hire Captains with a booze problem... I think the oil companies have figured that out.

    Not one drop was spilled during Katrina...or Rita..

    As for FL and CA...

    If people can't afford to drive there on vacation the conditions of the beaches is meaningless.


    You haven't explained (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:00:10 PM EST
    how drilling offshore for oil lowers the price of a barrel of oil. It will take years to get permits, do exploration, get rigs online, etc. -- it'll be 10-12 years before it gets to market.  Even then, the price of that oil will be determined on the international market, and the barrel of oil is determined by the highest bidder. It could well wind up in gas pumps in London, not Los Angeles.

    There will always be environmental risks from offshore drilling. Do you really think the benefits outweigh them?


    Do you understand the law of supply and (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:25:52 PM EST

    Doesn't look like it.


    Yes, not being able to afford their medicine and heat/cool their homes is risky for our senior citizens.

    You do understand that utilities are going through the roof, don't you??


    Yes I do. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:43:51 PM EST
    and the amount of oil estimated to be offshore our coasts is estimated to be too small to affect the international market. Which is where it would be sold.

    So all of this happened (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:12:59 PM EST
    between 2/2007 and 6/2008???

    That's when gasoline went from $2.25 to $4.00.

    There has been no shortage. What you have is speculators who have bid the price up every time the international scene has blinked.

    If we announce we are going to open up drilling, the  price will come down $60-80 a barrel within 3 months.

    Twenty years ago, 21 percent of oil contracts were purchased by speculators who trade oil on paper with no intention of ever taking delivery. Today, oil speculators purchase 66 percent of all oil futures contracts, and that reflects just the transactions that are known. Speculators buy up large amounts of oil and then sell it to each other again and again. A barrel of oil may trade 20-plus times before it is delivered and used; the price goes up with each trade and consumers pick up the final tab. Some market experts estimate that current prices reflect as much as $30 to $60 per barrel in unnecessary speculative costs.

    Over seventy years ago, Congress established regulations to control excessive, largely unchecked market speculation and manipulation. However, over the past two decades, these regulatory limits have been weakened or removed. We believe that restoring and enforcing these limits, along with several other modest measures, will provide more disclosure, transparency and sound market oversight. Together, these reforms will help cool the over-heated oil market and permit the economy to prosper.

    The nation needs to pull together to reform the oil markets and solve this growing problem.


    And then we have this.

    Then, in January 2006, ICE Futures in London began trading a futures contract for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil, a type of crude oil that is produced and delivered in the United States. ICE Futures also notified the CFTC that it would be permitting traders in the United States to use ICE terminals in the United States to trade its new WTI contract on the ICE Futures London exchange. ICE Futures as well allowed traders in the United States to trade US gasoline and heating oil futures on the ICE Futures exchange in London.

    Despite the use by US traders of trading terminals within the United States to trade US oil, gasoline, and heating oil futures contracts, the CFTC has until today refused to assert any jurisdiction over the trading of these contracts.

    Persons within the United States seeking to trade key US energy commodities - US crude oil, gasoline, and heating oil futures - are able to avoid all US market oversight or reporting requirements by routing their trades through the ICE Futures exchange in London instead of the NYMEX in New York.

    Is that not elegant? The US Government energy futures regulator, CFTC opened the way to the present unregulated and highly opaque oil futures speculation. It may just be coincidence that the present CEO of NYMEX, James Newsome, who also sits on the Dubai Exchange, is a former chairman of the US CFTC. In Washington doors revolve quite smoothly between private and public posts.

    A glance at the price for Brent and WTI futures prices since January 2006 indicates the remarkable correlation between skyrocketing oil prices and the unregulated trade in ICE oil futures in US markets. Keep in mind that ICE Futures in London is owned and controlled by a USA company based in Atlanta Georgia.

    In January 2006 when the CFTC allowed the ICE Futures the gaping exception, oil prices were trading in the range of $59-60 a barrel. Today some two years later we see prices tapping $120 and trend upwards. This is not an OPEC problem, it is a US Government regulatory problem of malign neglect.

    By not requiring the ICE to file daily reports of large trades of energy commodities, it is not able to detect and deter price manipulation. As the Senate report noted, "The CFTC's ability to detect and deter energy price manipulation is suffering from critical information gaps, because traders on OTC electronic exchanges and the London ICE Futures are currently exempt from CFTC reporting requirements. Large trader reporting is also essential to analyze the effect of speculation on energy prices."


    It's simple. We're being ripped by a monopoly and speculators. The way you beat'em is to increase supply and act in unpredictable ways.


    You think the piddly amount (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:59:17 PM EST
    of oil that we'd eventually pump fro offshore is gonna have much, if any, influence on speculators? Please. First, the oil companies are not gonna undertake expensive new offshore exploration  and development  without expecting a big return on the world market . Next, speculators will keep  pushing the price up,  until world consumers cannot afford to pay prices at the pump and for heating oil (esp  in our current econ malaise. where else to park/invest $$ than commodities?)  Of course, then there is the Chinese gov't subsidizing much of its citizenry's gas consumption (out of surplus $$ made in unbalanced trades with us. Ha! ).  

    What's also driving speculation  is the saber rattling by the US and Israel towards Iran that has the oil markets edgy. If McCain is elected, I don't see that edginess diminishing much if at all...


    And BTW (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:09:06 PM EST
    the myth that that speculators are behind the rise in oil prices has been pretty much debunked. here's Paul Krugman on the subject:



    As Col Potter use to say (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:17:45 PM EST
    "Horse Hockey."

    I mean it was Iran who fired the missiles, wasn't it?

    I mean it was Iran who declared they would destroy Israel.

    It is Iran who has troops in Iraq....

    You be a sad, sad man.

    Ever ask dinnerjacket how they got rid of their homosexuals???

    The bubble can not expand unless the belief system is that oil will become in short supply. Once that bubble pops, the false rise is done for and prices will fall back to reality.

    India and China use about 7 million barrels a day. If they increase 5% that is 350,000 which is less than a 2% drop in our usuage...

    We need drilling to increase oil supplies, and alternative energy to reduce usage... It is just that plain and simple.

    Too had all the complainers and whiners don't want to move.


    Hhahahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:35:32 PM EST
    Not one drop was spilled during Katrina...or Rita.
    .Spreading the wingnut echo chamber BS again? Yes I know that it is a new GOP talking point that you couldn't wait to trot out, but that doesn't male it true.

    The truth is that Hurricane Katrina caused oil spillage so significant it was clearly visible from space. It also wreaked environmental havoc near the scale of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster.

    think progress


    Since we can see (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:00:01 PM EST
    the color of a terrorists eyes from space I think we can see a drop of oil. From your source:

    DNV evaluated the available failure reports and industry practices and has concluded that the
    vast majority of GOM offshore pipelines performed well during the passage of Hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita.

    The impact to
    the environment has been minimal in hurricane events, primarily due to the design features, and
    industry practices intended for protection of life that are also focused on minimizing releases to
    the environment through planning, preparedness and response. The most significant impacts
    appear to have been the disruption of the oil and gas supply, and financial losses from the oil and
    gas infrastructure damage. While these are not desirable outcomes, the overall goal of
    prioritizing protection of life and the environment is clear in the demonstrated performance of
    the industry, meeting two of the major goals of the MMS for personal and environmental safety.

    Hurricane Katrina was a category 5 hurricane when it entered the OCS, destroying 46 platforms
    and damaging 20 others, making landfall on August 29, 2005. Katrina's path is the easterly one
    in Figure 9. There were about 211 minor pollution incidents reported to the MMS. Minor
    pollution incidents are categorized as incidents involving less than 500 barrels of oil that do not
    reach the coast line.



    PPJ Is FOS As Usual (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:11:53 PM EST
    PPJ's Claim, coincidentially the GOP talking point du jour:
    Not one drop was spilled during Katrina...or Rita.

    From my link:

    Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused 124 Offshore Spills For A Total Of 743,700 Gallons. 554,400 gallons were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 189,000 gallons were refined products from platforms and rigs. [MMS, 1/22/07]

    Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused Six Offshore Spills Of 42,000 Gallons Or Greater. The largest of these was 152,250 gallons, well over the 100,000 gallon threshhold considered a "major spill." [MMS, 5/1/06]

    In addition, the hurricanes caused disastrous spills onshore throughout southeast Louisiana and the rest of the Gulf Coast as tanks, pipelines, refineries and other industrial facilities were destroyed, for a total of 595 different oil spills. The 9 million gallons reported spilled were comparable with the Exxon Valdez's 10.8 million gallons, but unlike the Exxon Valdez, were distributed throughout Louisiana, Mississippi, and other Gulf Coast states, many in residential areas. The most massive spills included:

    • The Bass Enterprises Cox Bay spill of 3.78 million gallons of oil, the largest spill caused by the hurricanes
    • The Murphy Oil spill in Mereaux, LA of 819,000 gallons of oil, contaminating 1,700 homes and the local high school

    Not a drop according to BushCO/McSame mouthpiece PPJ


    My information is from your source, squeak (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:19:42 PM EST
    Maybe you should try reading before posting...

    Irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:47:39 PM EST
    The fact is that your claim that not a single drop of oil was spilled during Katrina is misinformation and an empty GOP talking point.

    When BP stopped maintaing the Alaskan Pipline... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Rojas on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:57:35 PM EST
    when they just let the D!!mn thing corrode untill the oil poured out on the tundra....
    that does not count?

    Got a link?? (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:00:45 PM EST
    Pick your poison... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Rojas on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:25:01 PM EST
    Google BP alaskan pipeline

    So you don't (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:58:18 PM EST
    Look. You made the claim. It is not up to me to prove it. That's your job.

    No, you made the claim that (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Rojas on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:17:51 AM EST
    we have not had a significant spill.

    And the trick about hiring drunk captains.
    The reality is that there is not sufficient, effective regulation of the industry. The problems are endemic to a model in which revenue falls cost of maintaining infrastucture increase. Compounded by comodity price fluctuations that may not demand sufficient yearly revenues and short term corporate think....
    Anyone with a dimes worth of common sense can see it.
    Just let the d!!mn thing rot because nobodies watching, to do otherwise costs money and boy wonder has to report his numbers to corporate.


    Nope (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:27:03 AM EST
    You made the claim of their being a spill.

    Your job, not mine.


    Once AgainPPJ Maintains His Record for Truthiness (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by john horse on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:32:24 PM EST
    Not one drop was spilled during Katrina...or Rita..

    Wow!  Where did you pull that one out of?  Once again, my rightwing friend, you have maintained your record for truthiness.

    There is absolutely no basis in fact for your statement.  As a matter of fact, the oil spill after Katrina was the second largest after Exxon Valez.  (see my comments regarding McCain and his Lies about the Oil Spill for documentation)  

    If you have facts proving me wrong, please provide them.  Otherwise, I accept your apology.


    Since I didn't insult you (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:47:55 PM EST
    I see no apology as needed.

    I now use Squeak's sources, since he was so kind to provide them...


    From what I have read (none / 0) (#138)
    by splashy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:24:27 PM EST
    There was all kinds of oil spilled with Katrina from the offshore rigs.

    Bush to the Democrats (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:48:26 PM EST
    "Your move."

    How long before the Congressional Dems cave? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Belswyn on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:18:42 PM EST
    I figure early September.

    Next week (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:25:51 AM EST
    Bush will call a special session... the market is off 200 pts as of 9:10 and in free fall.. The Demos will be brought to heel. Obama has lost the election.

    The way you word this (none / 0) (#139)
    by splashy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:31:29 PM EST
    Dems brought to heel, implies that Repubs are always the masters.

    I find that offensive and very arrogant.