To Drill or Not to Drill?
congresswatch | Energy | Land | Pollution | Water
As reported July 18 in the Billings Gazette, the U.S. House of Representatives thwarted a plan to spur drilling on already available federal lands in Alaska, the West and Gulf of Mexico.
The federal Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands Act of 2008 imposed a "use it or lose it" rule on current drilling leases held by oil and gas companies. It seems sensible to drill where leases already exist, yet some members of Congress - including Montana Rep. Dennis Rehberg - voted against the measure, claiming it would do little to boost exploration.
Rather than take advantage of resources already available, these congressional drill advocates and the Bush Administration upped their demands to open up the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico to exploration. The White House states that requiring oil and gas companies to develop on already leased lands before obtaining new leases would curb future U.S. production.
Yet, 68 million acres of federal lands are already under lease by the oil and gas industry, ready for possible exploration and development.
The Drill Act won a 244-173 majority, but still failed because it did not get a two-thirds margin under rules requiring a "supermajority" vote.
Many lawmakers who supported the measure doubt that lifting the moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf - a measure enacted by George H.W. Bush - would do anything to ease the pain of $4-plus per gallon at the pump, because the new offshore drilling would not produce oil for at least a decade. Instead, these lawmakers point out that oil speculation - not supply - is the root of skyrocketing energy prices.
But the financial pressures on consumers resulting from high gas prices is making many in Congress jumpy for short-term solutions, no matter what the environmental or economic consequences. Rep. Nick Rayhall (D-W.VA), who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, characterized the craze with, "Drill. Drill. Drill. Drill here. Drill now."
Surely, developing where the leases exist and where it makes sense environmentally and economically is a better lasting solution, rather than tearing blindly into new lands, where oil production capacity is unknown at best.
Most of all, Congress must get a handle on wild energy speculation by commodity traders and promote continued support for fuel efficiency, energy-saving public transport and renewable fuels development to address the mounting energy crisis.
In a statement dated 7/14/08 on the League of Conservation Voters website, LCV president, Gene Karpinski, referred to the Bush Administration's proposal to lift the twenty-seven year moratorium on offshore oil-drilling as a "reckless action" that "has neither hope of reducing gas prices nor concern for long-term consequences. Bush's own energy department tells us that offshore drilling will have no effect on gas prices...with several short-term options to reduce gas prices, including opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and reigning in speculators, it makes no sense...to embrace an option that won't work and will threaten the physical and economic well-being of millions of Americans."
Contact Congressman Rehberg. Ask him why he does not support efforts to use the nation's energy resources already available. Wouldn't that be the more conservative choice?
For More Information, Contact:
Read below for interesting commentary excerpts on the proposal to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling, as well as suggestions for real energy conservation, from the Progressive States Network:
"Drill now" for oil off our state coasts may make for cute, well-polled political rhetoric, but it is sadly typical of the oil-industry-funded propaganda that has diverted attention from real energy solutions for decades. Here's the reality of the proposal for offshore drilling:
- No Help for Gas Prices Now: Presidential candidate John McCain's own top economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, admitted it would have no immediate effect on supplies or prices and McCain himself said the plan would have mostly "psychological" benefits. In fact, the Energy Information Administration says that new offshore drilling wouldn't have "a significant impact" on gas prices until 2030 (yes, that's twenty-two years from now).
- Little Help in the Future: Combine estimates of offshore oil and drilling in Alaska's ANWR reserve and we still, decades from now, add only an additional 1 percent of world production in the far off future -- an amount that economist Dean Baker estimates would lower prices by about $0.08 on a $4.00 gallon of gas.
At best, instead of pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the hands of countries and companies based thousands of miles overseas, consumers will be pumping a portion of those billions to Exxon Mobil running rigs a hundred miles or so offshore.
No energy jobs for most communities from drilling, but plenty from kicking the oil habit: That kind of "energy independence" won't create jobs in most communities, since those oil dollars will still be pumped right out of your community and state. As U.S. PIRG highlights in a new report published just this week, Squandering the Stimulus, the federal stimulus checks are not helping local economies since increased gas prices mean families are essentially just signing their checks over to big oil companies like Exxon Mobil or sending them to oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia.
On the other hand, high gas prices can be transformed by state policymakers into local green jobs with the right political will. For example:
As General Motors and other companies promise to deliver plug-in electric cars within two years, it's worth remembering that the electricity powering those cars can then come from local sources -- solar, wind, cogeneration, biofuels -- which will create jobs in states across the country.
Expanding mass transit means not only power can come from local sources, but there will be jobs building the mass transit network, something many cities are recognizing.
If we retrofit homes and businesses to use less or no oil fuel, we will create tens of thousands of new construction jobs, replacing many jobs lost with the current subprime meltdown of new construction.
Americans are spending hundreds of billions of dollars ever year on oil and gasoline.
Instead of propping up that oil habit with false promises of offshore drilling, we can instead spend that money on green transit and heating options that will not only help save the planet from a climate catastrophe, but will also create green jobs in every community.
In other related news to the energy crisis and oil industry:
A 6/10/08 article on the Senate's recent failed attempt in June to implement a "Windfall Tax" (Senate Bill 3044) on the major oil companies. Funds from the tax would have been used to foster renewable energies, including solar and wind, as well as energy conservation measures.
This thwarted bill enjoyed broad support from conservation organizations and was supported by Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester. Unfortunately, "Big Oil" was able to convince enough of their lawmaking cronies in Washington to vote against the legislation.
