Democrats Oppose Drilling for Oil Off U.S. Coasts

Human Events ^ | May 1, 2008 | Staff

[yoe]

As Ann Coulter points out in the cover story of this week's HUMAN EVENTS, the Democratic Party has long pursued a strategy designed to force up the price of gasoline for American families.

Part of this strategy is to maintain a moratorium on oil drilling off the East and West coasts of the United States, thus artificially limiting the domestic supply.

Back in 1982, according to the Energy Information Agency, Congress enacted a moratorium on oil and gas drilling off the coast of Northern California. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush ordered the Department of Interior not to allow any new drilling off virtually all the rest of the East and West coasts until 2000. Some drilling was still allowed in the Gulf of Mexico, but not off the coast of Florida. In 1998, President Clinton ordered that President Bush's moratorium be continued until 2012.

Many Republicans in Congress want to lift this moratorium. House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo (R.-Calif.) is pushing legislation that would allow each state to decide individually if it wants drilling off its shores. But congressional Democrats, led by liberal House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.), are adamantly opposed to developing our domestic oil supplies to counter escalating gasoline prices.

HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor Amanda Carpenter confronted members of Congress on this issue.

I'm with HUMAN EVENTS and we've talked about lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling on the East and West coasts. Is that something you would support?

HOUSE RESOURCES CHAIRMAN RICHARD POMBO (R.-CALIF.): Yes, but what we are moving is a bill that basically turns over to the states the ability to decide whether they want development off their shore. If you do that, you will end up with a number of states that will allow it.

What states do you think will go for that?

POMBO: Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia have already indicated that they want to do that.

How much do you think that will help the oil supply?

POMBO: That will help dramatically. The immediate difference it makes is on natural gas, which is a bigger problem than the oil prices, because natural gas impacts the entire economy and that's where we would have the most immediate impact and it would be huge.

When could we expect that?

POMBO: We're going to move a bill this year. Whether or not we can get it through the Senate, I think, is the big question, but I believe the House will pass a bill this year.

Is lifting the moratorium on oil drilling off the East and West coasts on the table to increase the supply of oil?

HOUSE ENERGY CHAIRMAN JOE BARTON (R.-TEX.): Chairman Pombo of the Resources Committee has jurisdiction on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and what he's thinking about doing, what my understanding is, is to give the states sort of an opt-in on a state-by-state basis. They can decide to allow drilling in the federal OCS off their shores, and if they did, states would get an increased royalty share.

Would you support lifting that?

BARTON: Oh sure, sure. We have up to a 100 billion barrels of oil and gas in the OCS and in ANWR that are off-limits right now, and that would help our supply a lot.

Doesn't the oil moratorium put in place by Bush Sr., extended by President Clinton until 2012, that essentially prohibits drilling off the East and West coasts hurt the [oil] supply? Would you support lifting that moratorium?

SEN. MARIA CANTWELL (D.-WASH.): I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to

CANTWELL AIDE: Offshore.

CANTWELL: Oh, offshore?

Yes.

CANTWELL: Listen, the United States has 3% of the world's oil reserves, okay? And we have seen, if we think we are going to drill, why are the gas prices in Washington State higher? Because those prices out of Alaska end up getting set on the world market, okay? So, now we're going to get 3% or whatever the United States has? Do you think we're going to control the world market by having that? No. So, my point is that you know, I'm not saying that in every case the answer is no, but go and be aggressive about the alternative fuel market so you have some competition to gasoline prices. Because right now you don't have any competition, and we have places like China and India and other places eating up demand. We are just going to continue to get squeezed, so now is the time to be much more aggressive about alternative fuels.

Would you support lifting the moratorium on offshore oil drilling on the East and West coasts?

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R.-TEX.): Would I support it? Absolutely.

Would you support lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling on the East and West coasts?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D.-CALIR): No.

No? Now, I'm not trying to be cheeky, but doesn't that artificially inflate the price if we can't drill because of legislation?

FEINSTEIN: No, not necessarily at all. The fact of the matter is California is at refining capacity. They couldn't refine more if we had it.

Even if we opened it up?

FEINSTEIN: No.

And opened more refineries?

FEINSTEIN: Well, that's not the issue here. The issue is should there be drilling off the coast of California, and Califomians have spoken and they don't want it. So the answer is no.

I've been looking at the oil moratorium on offshore drilling on the East and West coasts. Would you support lifting that to increase the oil supply?

SEN. JUDD GREGG (R.-N.H.): I think we should give the states the option.

I just talked with Mr. Pombo, and he said there's actually going to be a bill in the House that will do that. Do you think that will have a chance of passing the Senate?

GREGG: I don't know. There's certainly more interest in it now than there has been in the past. There's also resistance to it. Obviously there's the issue with Florida, but there's states like Virginia that have expressed a desire to do it.

Would you support lifting [the moratorium on oil drilling off the East and West coasts] to immediately impact gas prices and drive them down?

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D.-CALIF.): Absolutely not. What we have to do, what our nation has to do, is make a decision to be energy independent. We should be spending our energy dollars on the Middle West, not the Middle East. Mr. [James] Clyburn [D.-S.C.] and Congresswoman [Rosa] DeLauro [D.-Conn.] talked about alternative energy sources where we and our own agriculture area would be able to have sources of oil that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. They're [Republicans are] thinking so tiny, tiny, small. They have to think beyond that. They have got to think of our national security, our economy, our environment, and they have got to think about America's consumers. As long as they are only thinking big oil, they will come up with these small solutions.

REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D.-S.C): Let me say something else about that. Let's go back to the State of the Union. The President said in the State of the Union Address that we must get rid of our addiction to oil. He didn't say foreign oil, he said addiction to oil. So then why are we going to spend time and resources drilling for more oil, be it ANWR or off the East or West coast? Why aren't we developing alternatives to oil? And we can do it within five years. I have spent the whole break working with colleges and universities on what we need to do going forward, hydrogen fuel cells, what we need to do with biofuels. I have coming into South Carolina, this coming weekend. Gov. Schweiker of Montana who will be at South Carolina State College spending a day there talking about alternatives to oil. [Iowa] Gov. Vilsack will be coming, talking about corn and soybeans. We know that rural farmers can be a part of making this country energy independent, and that's where we ought to be spending our resources. That's where we ought to be spending our money, not finding other sources of oil. You don't get rid of the addiction by changing the brand.

[From The Deer Stand]

It’s great to get these Democratic points out in the open via Free Republic but each of us needs to hammer away at our senators and congressman and demand that we drill our own oil in ANWR and offshore, build refineries without requiring 400 permits, and use nuclear power like the French do. I have written several letters to my representatives about this subject. Every Freeper needs to do the same. Read this commentary from May 2006: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/its-official-cuba-hires-china-to-drill.html

[calex59]

hat we have to do, what our nation has to do, is make a decision to be energy independent.

I wonder if Pelosi knows how stupid this sounds when she says just before this statement that she opposes more drilling in the USA. What a bunch of lying, weaseling scumbags democrats are.

[detective]

Democrats prevent the drilling for new supply in the US. They have prevented drilling in ANWAR and in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200605/ai_n17175024

[detective]

“Correct me if I’m wrong, but even if the amount sold doesn’t increase doesn’t the government stand to make more and more money as the price of oil, gasoline, et. al. increases?”

The Federal excise tax on gasoline is not a percentage . It is 18.4 cents per gallon.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/federalgasexciserate-20080501.pdf

[Bernard Marx]

I’d bet there is a *lot* of oil off the coast of California.

I recall landing in Santa Barbara one late afternoon and as we made our approach over the S.B. Channel the low sun highlighted a huge oil slick from natural seepage.

At the Mandalay Beach Resort Hotel near the Channel Islands at Oxnard, there are washing stations on the beach so people can remove oil and tar from their bare feet. Ever hear of Pismo Beach where the famous Pismo clams are found? "Pismo" is the Chumash Indian name for the little pellets of oil tar that wash ashore all along California's Central Coast. I've found them as far north as Hearst Castle.

California's rich elitists control most of that prime beach real estate. The Hollywood crowd runs Montecito, the ultra-wealthy enclave just south of Santa Barbara. Super-rich elitists from all over are drawn to Santa Barbara for its beauty and elitist-friendly ambiance. It considers itself the birthplace of the militant Green movement (UC Santa Barbara is a hotbed of Green-Marxist activity, and a professor there helped write the Global Warming mythology-propaganda for the IPCC).

These people are rich, powerful, Left-Socialist and absolutely dedicated to the notion that there will never be any further oil drilling in the S.B. Channel. They campaign on "green" issues but they're mostly worried that the ocean views from their multi-million dollar estates will be spoiled by the sight of drilling platforms.

[Doohickey]

SEN. MARIA CANTWELL (D.-WASH.): I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to

LOL!

[Red_Devil 232]

The RED DOT is the GREEN area is where we want to drill

[CPT Clay]

At what price per barrel do the Dems lift moritoriums, dril ANWR, etc?

I believe on every piece of ligilation an amendment to dril AnWR if the average price of gasoline goes above $4.00 per gallon.

[thackney]

There are a lot more taxes collected from oil companies than only the gas excise tax at the pump. It is taxed all along the process and again with any money left over for profit. Governments make more money off the oil industry than the companies keep as profits.

ExxonMobil 2007
Revenue $404.6 Billion
Profit $40.6 Billion (10.0%)
Taxes $102.5 Billion (25.3%)

Sales-Based taxes $31.728B
Other taxes and duties $40.953B
Income taxes $29.864B

2007 Financial & Operating Review
http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/news_pub_fo_2007.pdf
Page 16

- - - - - - - - -

ConocoPhillips 2007
Revenue $194.5 Billion
Profit $11.9 Billion (6.1%)
Taxes $30.4 Billion (15.6%)

Taxes other than income taxes $18.990B
Income taxes $11.891B

2007 Annual Report
http://www.conocophillips.com/NR/rdonlyres/3838234F-F20C-4BCE-AE8D-78DE29D67455/0/07RevisedARfinal.pdf
Page 60

- - - - - - - - -

Chevron 2007
Revenue $220.9 Billion
Profit $18.7 Billion (8.5%)
Taxes $35.7 Billion (16.2%)

Taxes other than income taxes $22.266B
Income taxes $13.479B

2007 Annual Report Supplement
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/13/130102/reports/CVX_ARsupp07.pdf
Page 3

- - - - - - - - -

Marathon 2007

Revenue $62.8 Billion
Profit $4.0 Billion (6.3%)
Taxes $8.5 Billion (13.5%)

[chimera]

Your post has captured the essence of the conflict between the political realm and physical/engineering reality when the two worlds collide. Political timelines are on the order of months, maybe a year or two. Development and deployment of new technologies can take on the order of decades. No politician thinks in those terms when they have to run for office every two or four years. Few understand or will recognize the phase lag inherent in making decisions and having widespread implementation across a diverse and complex sector of a technological society.

There is also a fundamental conflict in the manner in which technological decisions made by government entities are reached. You see it in the responses by the various political figures in the original post. A smart political leader will enlist the assistance of recognized technical experts and trust their judgment in advising them on how to vote on technical issues. Unfortunately, today you see political leaders pandering and making decisions based more on what they think the public perceives as desirable, and thus will make them popular. The fundamental flaw in trusting technical decisions to popular votes is that, by definition of a democracy, two morons are "smarter" than one genius, so you have the spectacle of two brainless dolts like Pelosi and Cantwell overriding the intelligence of someone on the level of Einstein. Well, eventually Mother Nature pays no mind of how many votes you have. Pelosi and Cantwell can pass all the laws they want to against energy shortages and high prices, but when you burn up your natural gas in utility boilers, or destroy your foodstocks for some government-subsidized boondoggle like ethanol, the laws of nature and economics will trump whatever laws the airheads will pass.

[GourmetDan]

Tis as expected.

Thanks for the added perspective.

[yankeedame]

Thanks for the heads up! I wasn’t sure how that worked. Nice to know the government has reason to want to see lower fuel prices

[GourmetDan]

"I wonder if Pelosi knows how stupid this sounds when she says just before this statement that she opposes more drilling in the USA."

Demos believe that if you have feelings and speak words you have made tremendous progress.

[Otho]

Where is it stated that this interview is several years old? Pombo and Barton aren’t chairmen of anything. And Nancy Pelosi isn’t House MINORITY Leader anymore. Actually, a bill which included allowing drilling in ANWR passed the Senate back in 2005 or 2006 when the Rs held both houses, but RINOs in the House helped defeat it. Most, if not all, of them lost their reelection bids.

[Redleg Duke]

"Sorry, have to disagree. Please leave them with all the sharp objects that can be found."

ROTFLMAO!

[SAJ]

More to the point, she's an outright liar. Refinery utilisation nationwide is running 83-84 %. Reasonably so, too -- refiners are just barely breaking even on motor gasoline (of course, they're making a killing on every gallon of #2 oil).

However, with ute at 84%, we could very easily ramp refining up another 10%. Feinswine, as usual, is lying out her arse.

[denydenydeny]

Would you support lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling on the East and West coasts?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D.-CALIR): No.

No? Now, I'm not trying to be cheeky, but doesn't that artificially inflate the price if we can't drill because of legislation?

FEINSTEIN: No, not necessarily at all. The fact of the matter is California is at refining capacity. They couldn't refine more if we had it.

Even if we opened....more refineries?

FEINSTEIN: Well, that's not the issue here.

Try to follow the logic. Breathtaking.

[pallis]

Democrats want $6 dollar a gallon gas, so they can keep the environmentalists happy. The best way for Democrats to get what they want is to create supply problems. If people complain too loud about paying $4 dollars per gallon, the powers that be will have us waiting in gas lines until we are happy to pay $6. None of their plan involves increased production.

[detective]

Good info. You are not including state and local taxes, regulatory fees, environmental compliance fees, etc.

[detective]

Good info. You are not including state and local taxes, regulatory fees, environmental compliance fees, etc.