Obama does an about face on offshore drilling

[okie52]

Obama says he is going to open up the coasts after 3 years of blocking it:

Obama calls for offshore oil drilling and clean energy
By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY

Updated 11h 8m ago

By Karen Bleier, AFP/Getty Images
In a broad appeal to U.S. voters, President Obama said Tuesday he will open more than 75% of potential offshore oil and gas resources to exploration and, at the same time, produce enough clean energy on public land to power three million homes.

During his State of the Union address, Obama said the nation is rapidly boosting its oil production but, with just 2% of the world's oil reserves, it needs to look at other energy sources. He said he will "take every possible action to safely develop" natural gas while requiring companies that drill on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use.





http://content.usatoday.com/communit...clean-energy/1

Amazing what promises you can get in an election year. Don't trust him at all but will give him credit if he follows through.

[XingTheRubicon]

Just wait 'til this summer...he'll be promising an executive order for mandatory blow-jobs at health food stores...

hand-jobs at Homeland and IGA

[okie52]

He knows the repubs were going to come after him on this issue...and he was very vulnerable. A pre-emptive strike on his part. But he may actually have to do something on this given how early he has announced it prior to the election.

[OULenexaman]

ict in 3....2....1

[sappstuf]

Just wait 'til this summer...he'll be promising an executive order for mandatory blow-jobs at health food stores...

hand-jobs at Homeland and IGA

Ah, the Clinton strategy..

[ictsooner7]

ict in 3....2....1

Another thread coming straight from rightwing talking points.

Of course I have to straighten you people out. Drilling off the east and west coasts was banned by congress in 1982. Explain to me how Obama blocked it? If he did, so did reagan, bush I, clinton and bush II. Why didn't the idiot open it up?

Home » Features »
Features | Energy & Sustainability


Can Offshore Drilling Really Make the U.S. Oil Independent?
Even if U.S. energy policy goes "drill baby drill," there will be no escape from the vicissitudes of the global oil market

By Emily Gertz | September 12, 2008 | 57

A POTENTIAL FIX?: Does the ocean floor off the coasts of the U.S. hold the key to energy independence?

When Arizona Sen. John McCain accepted the Republican nomination for president, he vowed to cut America's reliance on foreign oil by opening up the nation's Atlantic and Pacific coasts to drilling—drawing cheers from GOP delegates on hand for his party's national convention. "We will drill new oil wells offshore, and we'll drill them now," McCain pledged to his faithful, who gushed with enthusiastic chants of "drill, baby, drill!" The ultimate goal, the candidate said: to "stop sending $700 billion a year (for oil) to countries that don't like us very much."

No one disputes that a lot of oil lies untapped under the rocky floors of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans off the U.S. coasts, in areas where Congress has banned drilling since 1982. But is it enough to free the U.S. from its dependence on foreign suppliers?

The Minerals Management Service (MMS), is the part of the U.S. Department of the Interior responsible for leasing tracts to oil and gas companies and collecting the royalties on them, which amount to around $8 billion a year. The leases are supposed to be awarded through a competitive bidding process, in which the best-qualified company coming in with the highest split of royalties wins. (The Interior Department's inspector general, however, released a scathing report on September 10 charging that 19 current and past officials in the MMS's Denver-based Royalty in Kind program were both literally and figuratively in bed with energy company execs. The IG report describes "a culture of ethical failure" in which staffers accepted vacations and other pricey gifts from oil companies, rigged contracts, did drugs with one another and had sex with industry reps.

The MMS has estimated that there are around 18 billion barrels in the underwater areas now off-limits to drilling. That's significantly less than in oil fields open for business in the Gulf of Mexico, coastal Alaska and off the coast of southern California, where there are 10.1 billion barrels of known oil reserves as well as an estimated 85.9 billion more.

To put these numbers in perspective: one U.S. barrel of oil equals 42 gallons (159 liters) and, according to the Energy Information Administration (an arm of the U.S. Department of Energy that provides energy data and analysis), the U.S. consumes some 20.8 million barrels of oil a day—almost one quarter of the 87 million used worldwide. That adds up to 7.59 billion barrels a year.

The EIA estimates that by 2030, U.S. oil daily demand will climb to nearly 23 million barrels, with global per-day consumption expected to top 118 million.

But here's the catch: There is a chance that the MMS has miscalculated the amount of offshore oil, because its estimates are based on 30- to 40-year-old data. For example, MMS spokesperson Nicholas Pardi says a 1987 survey of the Gulf of Mexico indicated there was potentially nine billion barrels of oil there, but when the area was resurveyed nine years later (using newer technologies), the number jumped to potential 45 billion barrels.

In other words, says Ian Nathan, a senior research analyst with New York City–based Energy Intelligence Group (a publisher of data and information on the global energy industry), it is possible that areas currently off-limits to drilling might actually contain a lot more—or less, for that matter—petroleum than previously believed.

So why hasn't the info been updated? Gathering and analyzing this data is expensive: According to Lars Johan Frigstad, CEO of Oslo, Norway–based Scan Geophysical ASA, a seismic survey in the North Atlantic can cost $6 million or more a month and take one to four months or longer to gather (depending on the size of the area being surveyed).

And there's no incentive for oil companies—or the feds—to cough up the cash unless Congress lifts the ban, according to Harold Syms, chief of the MMS's Resource Evaluation Division. If the moratorium was lifted, the MMS would "evaluate the tracts...to be sure the public gets fair market value" for oil leases. He says the agency would issue a permit to an outside firm to do seismic surveys of designated areas, in return for giving all the resulting data to the MMS. The surveyors could also sell the information to private companies interested in bidding on the leases.

Oil companies would commission their own more precise seismic surveys after they were awarded leases, says Judy Penniman of the American Petroleum Institute, the industry's Washington, D.C.–based trade association, and test drill the most promising oil deposits. If test drilling revealed recoverable oil reserves, she says that a company would have to plunk down another $2 billion for an oil rig. But even if Congress were to lift its 16-year ban on offshore drilling tomorrow, she agrees with the EIA that it would take at least five years before an oil company awarded a lease could pump its first drop of oil.

What's more, industry experts say no matter how much oil there may be offshore, only some of it will be "recoverable," that is, able to be removed at a cost that's cheap enough to guarantee oil companies enough profit on their investment. Current shortages of both oil rigs and skilled manpower to operate them could also bottleneck such efforts.

According to Phyllis Martin, a senior EIA energy analyst, Atlantic and Pacific oil fields tend to be smaller on average than those in the Gulf of Mexico, but it is just as costly to drill them, making the economics of drilling these areas especially tough to justify.

In fact, oil companies have yet to take advantage of the nearly 86 billion barrels of offshore oil in areas already available for leasing and development. So why are they chomping at the drill bit to open up the moratorium waters and survey them anew?

"Oil company stocks are valued in large part based on how much proved reserves they have," says Robert Kaufman, an expert on world oil markets and director of Boston University's Center for Energy and Environmental Studies. Translation: just having more promising leases in hand would be worth billions of dollars.

So are promises of U.S. oil independence real—or rhetoric? The issue is not whether the U.S. can significantly reduce its reliance on oil imports with domestic, offshore oil, say both Kaufman and Nathan, but whether there is enough that is recoverable to significantly lower the price of a barrel of oil on the global market.

Even by 2030, offshore drilling would not have a significant impact on oil prices, according to Martin, because oil prices are determined on the global market. "The amount of total production anticipated—around 200,000 barrels a day—would be less than 1 percent of the total projected international consumption."

And disruptions to the global supply affect the price of every barrel of oil the U.S. purchases, whether it be from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or off the New Jersey coast. "Suppose the U.S. got all its oil domestically, and the price was $100 a barrel. Then the Saudi family was deposed," disrupting that country's oil exports, Kaufman says. "The Saudis produce about 10 million barrels a day of the world's 85 million, so clearly prices would go up, because now there is this big shortfall of oil."

"Do you think oil companies are going to sell [U.S. oil] to U.S. consumers for anything less than top price?," he asks. "The answer is no."

What if Congress mandated that the offshore oil could not be exported? "The question of how much of that product that comes out, where it goes, I don't think Congress can dictate," industry rep Penniman says. "It goes onto the market. It's a free market system…but it is up to Congress [to pass] the laws on what they will and won't open."

Such a move could in fact increase the nation's energy costs. "Any time you impose a constraint, like 'oil from Alaska cannot go to Japan,'" Kaufman notes, "you're saying, 'don't do the cheapest thing, do something more expensive.' So everybody pays a little more. Where the free market does work very efficiently is to minimize transportation costs" for oil—which are determined by many factors, including the location of the nearest refinery that can handle the particular characteristics of the crude oil being shipped.

Kaufman dismisses as "nonsense" any promises that offshore drilling could make the U.S. "oil independent." Even if it could somehow insulate itself from the ups and downs of the global oil market, he notes, the U.S. would have to make a huge leap in domestic oil production to replace what it buys from overseas.

"At its peak in production, which occurred in 1970s, the U.S. produced about 10 million [barrels of oil] a day," Kaufman says. "Now, after 30 years of fairly steady decline, we produce about five million barrels a day," whereas we consume 20 million barrels daily. "Whoever talks about oil independence has to tell a story about how we close a 15-million-barrel gap."

The McCain campaign did not return repeated calls seeking comment.



.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I see Mr cut and paste is back with an article that's only 4 years old.

[sappstuf]

I see Mr cut and paste is back with an article that's only 4 years old.

Too bad he couldn't have found an article a few weeks after that one.. He could have answered his own questions.

I was surprised ict referred to Obama as an idiot.. Sounds racist.

[okie52]

You are truly stupid or don't have a memory worth a ****, probably both. The congressional ban expired in 2008. I've posted many charts showing this. That was a dem congress that allowed it to expire in 2008 in a response to public outcry over offshore drilling in an election year. Following the expiration of the congressional ban, W lifted the executive ban. Lifting the executive ban prior to the congressional ban would have had no effect. W then scheduled lease sales to begin in 2010 which Obama delayed and then banned offshore drilling in december 2010.

The other threads had these charts (twice).
Go to them, pictures should help you.

But now your boy says he is going to open 75% of it up again. Why is he going to do that?

[ictsooner7]

I see Mr cut and paste is back with an article that's only 4 years old.

Did history change over the coarse of the last four years? Were the coasts closed by congress in 1982? Who was going to open them up in March 2010 before the BP spill? OBAMA.

Of course I copy and paste, I can back up my arguements with facts and data, instead of ignorantly regurgitating rightwing talking points and spewing stupidity. Obviously the rightwingers on here do not know about GOOGLE SEARCH, so I have to do it for them.

If you would like I can copy and paste yet another article vaporizing the talking points threads.

[soonercruiser]

"Zero"".....
Sorry ict, but Congress is not currently blocking off-shore drilling.
The Obama "administration is....JUST LIKE THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE!!!

And, Obama has promised opening up drilling before.
And, the only thing they open up are usless leases!

[okie52]

I see Mr cut and paste is back with an article that's only 4 years old.

INcredible how many times we have been over this with him and he still doesn't get it.

[okie52]

Did history change over the coarse of the last four years? Were the coasts closed by congress in 1982? Who was going to open them up in March 2010 before the BP spill? OBAMA.

Of course I copy and paste, I can back up my arguements with facts and data, instead of ignorantly regurgitating rightwing talking points and spewing stupidity. Obviously the rightwingers on here do not know about GOOGLE SEARCH, so I have to do it for them.

If you would like I can copy and paste yet another article vaporizing the talking points threads.

Cant even read pictures? We try to make it simple for you and you still screw it up.

Go to the 1st page of the thread "harold Hamm talks to Obama". ONce again pictures were supplied specifically for you. Look at them. Try to understand them.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

If you look on page 25 of the current 5 year OCS lease plan on the BOEMRE web site, you'll see that only the Eastern GOM is currently under Congressional moratorium

http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/Pr..._2012-2017.pdf

[sappstuf]

Did history change over the coarse of the last four years? Were the coasts closed by congress in 1982? Who was going to open them up in March 2010 before the BP spill? OBAMA.

Of course I copy and paste, I can back up my arguements with facts and data, instead of ignorantly regurgitating rightwing talking points and spewing stupidity. Obviously the rightwingers on here do not know about GOOGLE SEARCH, so I have to do it for them.

If you would like I can copy and paste yet another article vaporizing the talking points threads.

By all means, vaporize away. I need a good laugh.

[okie52]

If you look on page 25 of the current 5 year OCS lease plan on the BOEMRE web site, you'll see that only the Eastern GOM is currently under Congressional moratorium

http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/Pr..._2012-2017.pdf

I gave him pics on page 1 of the Harold Hamm talks to Obama thread. It shows it all. He just can't digest it.

[ictsooner7]

You are truly stupid or don't have a memory worth a ****, probably both. The congressional ban expired in 2008. I've posted many charts showing this. That was a dem congress that allowed it to expire in 2008 in a response to public outcry over offshore drilling in an election year. Following the expiration of the congressional ban, W lifted the executive ban. Lifting the executive ban prior to the congressional ban would have had no effect. W then scheduled lease sales to begin in 2010 which Obama delayed and then banned offshore drilling in december 2010.

The other threads had these charts (twice).
Go to them, pictures should help you.

But now your boy says he is going to open 75% of it up again. Why is he going to do that?

So............the idiot passed it 7 times, but its not really his fault..........wait, wait oh he total and complete control of congress for 6 years and didn't do it. Why did Obama put the block back on in Dec 2010? Was it a huge oil spill in the gulf to give time to update regulations on dilling? MAYBE. So again, Obama opened it after after closing it 14 months ago and that is the cause of our energy issues? Bush had it closed for eight years, its been closed under Obama for 14 months. Listen to youself.

[ictsooner7]

"Zero"".....
Sorry ict, but Congress is not currently blocking off-shore drilling.
The Obama "administration is....JUST LIKE THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE!!!

And, Obama has promised opening up drilling before.
And, the only thing they open up are usless leases!

Why did they block it? OIL SPILL.

[ictsooner7]

And here again is the history. Try to learn.

OVERVIEW

Offshore drilling for oil and natural gas near the coasts of the United States was banned by Congress in 1981 after outcries caused by pollution from accidents and spills. In 1990, President George H. W. Bush issued executive orders supporting the ban, orders rescinded by his son, President George W. Bush, in 2008 as gasoline prices spiked and the cost of oil became a significant issue in the presidential race. While a candidate, Barack Obama favored a much more modest opening of the coastal fields than did his rival, John McCain, whose motto was “drill here, drill now.’'

On March 31, 2010, President Obama proposed to open vast expanses of American coastlines to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, in an apparent bid to win political support for energy and climate legislation. But that idea — which prompted distress among environmentalists and tepid support from Republicans — was sharply set back by the massive oil slick created in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010 after a drilling rig exploded and sank off the Louisiana coast, killing 11 workers and leaving four others critically injured. A leak in a pipe a mile deep spewed out what the government eventually estimated to be nearly five million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, making it the largest accidental spill in history.

In response to the spill, the administration put in place a moratorium on deepwater oil and gas drilling, a step that came as a blow to the oil industry and angered Gulf Coast communities dependent on offshore drilling for jobs and income. In October, the administration announced that it was ending the moratorium and issuing new rules that tighten standards for well design, blowout preventers, safety certification, emergency response and worker training.

In December 2010, pulling back further from Mr. Obama’s original proposal, the administration rescinded its decision to expand offshore oil exploration into the eastern Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic Coast. Drilling would remain under a moratorium for those areas for at least the next seven years, until stronger safety and environmental standards were in place. But drilling would continue in the central and western Gulf of Mexico, although under a new set of safeguards put in place after the deadly BP explosion and oil spill.

In April 2011, a year after the BP spill began, the much-maligned federal agency responsible for policing offshore drilling had been remade, with a tough new director, an awkward new name (the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement) and a sheaf of stricter safety rules. The agency was trying to put some distance between itself and the industry it regulates, but even those running it conceded that it would be years before they could establish a robust regulatory regime able to minimize the risks to workers and the environment while still allowing exploration offshore.

In November 2011, the Obama administration announced its proposed five-year plan for offshore oil drilling,which calls for opening new areas in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska but bars development along the East and West Coasts.

The plan disappointed environmentalists but fell far short of what the oil industry and its Congressional supporters demanded.

The plan, which is subject to months of public hearings and possible revisions, expands the areas in the Gulf of Mexico that are now under development, including some near Florida that have been off limits. It will also make available broader parts of the Arctic Ocean off the North Slope of Alaska and in the Cook Inlet off the state’s southern shore.

[OULenexaman]

Weee doggies.....you know Jethro graduated the 6th grade.....highest in his class.....had 'em all beat by a good 2 feet.