Gas is $4 a gallon. Heating oil is through the roof. Diesel is almost $5 a gallon. People are aggravated at best, angry at worst. The president and the Republican party claim part of the solution is to open up protected wildlife reserves and offshore areas to drilling. They claim the Democrats are "out of touch" with the desires of the American people by not allowing Big Oil to drill off the coast of places like Florida or California. On the surface, it seems to make sense. After all, aren't we importing most of our oil from countries that hate us? Let's produce our own and reduce our dependency on OPEC. Open up the offshore areas and protected wildlife reserves. To hell with the polar bears. We need oil.
There is just one small issue. The oil companies already have over 60,000,000 acres of land under lease that they ARE NOT drilling. Some of it is right next door to the Alaskan Wildlife reserve, in fact. Some of it is in specially zoned waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Democrats tried to remind people of this overlooked fact today with the Drill Act that is currently on the House floor. The bill would require oil companies to start drilling on the lands they ALREADY LEASE, or loose the leases.
"Democrats brought forth their 'Use It or Lose It' bill without knowing it was already the law of the land," said GOP Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo. "Today we're reminded that the majority's efforts to 'unlock' NPR-A are about as necessary as passing a bill ordering the sun to rise."
To be sure, current Department of Interior regulations are suppose to strip oil companies of their leases if they have not begun exploration or drilling for oil by a certain point. However current regulations are lax, thanks to a pro-Big Oil administration, and the requirements that the oil companies have to meet are minimal. The bill would close a lot of the loopholes in the current regulations, and force Big Oil to really "use it or lose it." Contrary to Blunt's rhetoric, loopholes and a slack Department of Interior pretty much let Oil Companies hold on to land indefinitely.
Though the bill may seem redundant to some as it restates what is suppose to already be law, it also serves as a reminder as to what the President's off-shore drilling plans really are...a land grab. Opening up offshore drilling when the oil companies already possess 60,000,000 acres of land makes about as much sense as letting your neighbor store his furniture in your basement when he has a completely empty house.
The oil companies, of course, dismiss the Democrats concerns regarding all of that land that goes to waste. As Sara Banaszak of the American Petroleum Institute said "...the oil industry is actively exploring the leases made available by the federal government-none of them came with Mapquest directions that say "drill here for 50 million barrels."
Well, nobody said anything about Mapquest directions. Nobody questioned that exploration is a complex process. What we are questioning is what makes the oil companies, and Republicans, believe exploration offshore and in protected areas is somehow going to be easier than exploring what they already have?
And as another point of note, the whole moratorium on off-shore drilling does not prevent ALL offshore drilling. In fact, the oil companies already have the rights to drill on more than 300 million acres offshore! Some of it is currently being drilled, but much of it is waiting for exploration.
Those areas currently off limits are those designated as endangered habitats, areas that the fishing industry is dependent on for its livelihood, or areas that are dependent on tourism for their local economies. The current rules regarding offshore drilling recognize that the oceans belong to everyone, not just the oil companies, and that the impact of offshore drilling must be balanced against the needs of other industries. While the president claims that the risk to the environment is "almost negligible," in point of fact it only takes one oil spill to destroy the livelihoods of fishermen in a region. It only takes one oil spill to ruin a tourist season for an area than depends on its beaches for its economy. Is it so much to ask the oil companies to properly manage the land they have already been given before demanding more?
And even without an actual spill or accident, the act of exploration and drilling negatively impacts the environment. It interfers with the natural migration of sealife, causing economic harm to those that make their living on the sea. It can negatively impact tourism by destroying the natural beauty of an area. How many people will pay for dinner cruises to just see oil drilling rigs for miles? Or pay to go whale watching when all the whales have been chased away? Sound petty? Tell that to the thousands of people whose economic lives depend on tourism.
Existing regulations regarding drilling balance the needs of the oil industry with the needs of other industries and the needs of the environment. Opening up currently restricted areas, by the administration's own admission, won't produce a drop of oil for at least seven to ten years. Yet it would in that same time destroy other industries dependent on those same waters. Offshore drilling won't offer any immediate relief to the economy, and in fact could end up doing more harm by forcing people in the tourism and fishing industries out of work, as well as driving up the prices of seafood and other produces derived from the sea.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080717/ap_on_go_co/congress_energy;_ylt=AoGWxje9CdYvqLbFIJIZKoo8KbIF
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 21
Don't bet on the prices coming down by November, though. Bush has created a monster, and that monster is money hungry.
Two words. Dry holes.
But then again they aren't using the land they have already leased.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977399046&nav=MyGather
If there is someone or something stopping the oil companies from drilling on what they already have, then that is another issue entirely. A bigger land grab isn't the answer. Instead, whatever is blocking the ability to drill on land that has already been approved should be dealt with.
And again, 64 holes over 64 million acres isn't even a dent. That's one hole per million acres. If there is something preventing them from digging more holes, that is a different issue and I agree it should be addressed. But sacrificing other industries and threatening delicate habitats isn't the answer...particularly when the issues that you address concerning the existing 64 million acres will just exist tenfold anywhere else.
I don't argue that exploration is expensive. I don't argue that not every acre will produce oil. What I argue is how does giving them more land solve either problem? Why demand more land for drilling when the actual process of exploration and drilling does not change? The actual process of exploration and drilling on what they already have would be no different than the process if they were awarded more. So why give them more, and risk harming other industries, for no obvious gain?
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977389710
Oil and natural gas leases are options to explore, with no guarantee that they hold any commercial quantities of oil or natural gas. In fact, most don't.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=774067
Every step of the way, huge amounts of time are needed to obtain the series of permits that allow this development. In short, leases are not "idle" while all the preparatory work goes on.
Debunking three 'truths' about offshore drilling
The notion that oil companies are just sitting on oil leases is a myth. With oil prices still above $100 a barrel, that charge never made sense.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102145.html