McCain calls for offshore drilling, says it would help in the "short term"

[HAL 9000 96]

Seriously though, there are a large amount of people who don't follow the arguments, just react to how they see things. They are genuinely hurting right now and they will see this as an answer. They are likely to be working poor independants who will vote whichever way they determine they will get some immediate releif. This will appeal to that voter as will McCain's seniority when it comes to the economy.

What remains to be determined is how influential these people will be come election time and which of the various issues, health care, the economy, Iraq, gas prices, even the mortgage crises happens to be top of the tree when they get to the voting booth. Personally, I think there are a lot of these type of voters but that is just a gut instinct, it's not based on any polls or studies.

Lucky for these voters that they'll probably tune in, then, to whichever debate/meeting the candidates will focus on energy policy in which frivolous strategies to lure votes can be vetted or debunked.

[GaryC 7]

Seriously though, there are a large amount of people who don't follow the arguments, just react to how they see things. They are genuinely hurting right now and they will see this as an answer. They are likely to be working poor independants who will vote whichever way they determine they will get some immediate releif. This will appeal to that voter as will McCain's seniority when it comes to the economy.

What remains to be determined is how influential these people will be come election time and which of the various issues, health care, the economy, Iraq, gas prices, even the mortgage crises happens to be top of the tree when they get to the voting booth. Personally, I think there are a lot of these type of voters but that is just a gut instinct, it's not based on any polls or studies.

Lucky for these voters that they'll probably tune in, then, to whichever debate/meeting the candidates will focus on energy policy in which frivolous strategies to lure votes can be vetted or debunked.

You need to give us more credit than that. I know that drilling today will not mean lower prices tomorrow. But I do know that drilling today will mean that prices will go up slower over the next few years. I also know that not drilling will mean the prices will be higher for the forseable future.

Most people know that we need to, and will get away from oil. They also know that any solution is still years away. In the meantime we need to continue producing our own energy, be it domestic oil, nuclear or coal while we look for other solutions. The stuborness of the dems to shut us out of our own supplies isn't playing well with the public. This is a great move by McCain.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The stuborness of the dems to shut us out of our own supplies isn't playing well with the public.

Again, Gary, the opposition to offshore drilling - at least as far as the FL shore is concerned - is very much bi-partisan. McSame hasn't proposed anything to address that opposition. And so it stands.

[HAL 9000 96]

The stuborness of the dems to shut us out of our own supplies isn't playing well with the public.

Again, Gary, the opposition to offshore drilling - at least as far as the FL shore is concerned - is very much bi-partisan. McSame hasn't proposed anything to address that opposition. And so it stands.

Indeed. Plus (to Gary)... you must also consider what will be a realistic level of relief at the pump. We've already covered that ANWR has not enough oil in its USGS estimate of 10 billion barrels total volume to supply the US Market for more than 5-10 years tops. This move by McCain is only intended at garnering votes from those that have problems with multiplication and division over this timescale.

With the expected electoral vetting and debating, the "proposal" will sink to the bottom of the lake.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

In California one of the biggest opponents of off-shore drilling is actually Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, both parties in this state are strongly opposed to it because of this blowout near Santa Barbara in 1969:

http://www.sbwcn.org/spill.shtml

[GaryC 7]

The stuborness of the dems to shut us out of our own supplies isn't playing well with the public.

Again, Gary, the opposition to offshore drilling - at least as far as the FL shore is concerned - is very much bi-partisan. McSame hasn't proposed anything to address that opposition. And so it stands.

Florida's offshore drilling policy is outdated

David L. Batt May 14, 2008

The economic prosperity and national security of our country dictates that the distortions and false assertions about offshore oil and gas production be challenged.

Many Floridians are already letting it be known that they have had enough of the political demagoguery. "It's the perception of offshore rigs, not any real hazard they present, that's a problem," Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas wrote on Jan. 31. "We are pandering to coastal counties, environmentalists and editorial boards about a nonexisting threat."

The facts support such a statement. There has not been a problem on the beaches in this country from offshore drilling for 38 years, and the technology to control any potential problem is light years ahead of where it was back then. Also, while a spill at Santa Barbara, Calif., was from a well just six miles off the coast, no one is proposing drilling anywhere near that close to Florida.

A great example of how the industry and the government know how to conduct offshore production in an environmentally sound manner is what happened during hurricane Katrina. When that storm was a Category 5 plowing through the offshore production facilities in the central Gulf, it destroyed 113 platforms and damaged 457 pipeline segments; yet, according to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, "no shoreline or wildlife impacts were noted."

The real concern for Florida should be what is happening to the cost of fuel to bring tourists to Florida. We are seeing more and more statistical proof that the high prices are affecting the number of visitors to our state, and that in turn is affecting sales tax receipts.

At a time when the state's coffers are shrinking, our policy-makers should be looking at ways to hold down the costs of energy. They might also look down the road to the day when Florida could reap the financial rewards of royalty revenue from oil and gas production off our shores.

Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas will be drawing revenues from recently announced record-breaking $3.7 billion oil and gas leases located 125 miles south of the Florida Panhandle. However, Florida will not profit from the deal under a 2006 agreement that specified how far such drilling must be from our coast.

Another major economic concern for our state is the high cost of generating our electricity. Now that the policy-makers have ruled out new coal-fired power plants, natural gas will increase dramatically as the needed feedstock for such production. The state currently produces about 37 percent of its electricity from natural gas, and the prediction is that, by 2015, electricity prices will be 26 percent higher because of the new state policy. Natural gas reserves are abundantly available in nearby Gulf waters but are currently blocked by the offshore drilling ban.

One final concern often voiced by misinformed drilling opponents is the issue of providing an adequate buffer for military training. Such activity must be protected, and the vast areas that are set aside for that purpose should continue to have first priority to assure our defense needs. However, it is important to note that our nation needs more domestic production of oil and gas to ensure adequate supplies of those essential commodities for military use.

For years, the oil and gas industry secured U. S. government-sanctioned leases in the eastern Gulf with lease stipulations that created "drilling windows" allowing both activities to take place simultaneously when appropriate and requiring lease holders to give priority to military testing operations when deemed in need by the military.

One example of the use of such "windows" was the exploration of a small section of Destin Dome areas south of Panama City, where American companies invested more than $100 million exploring for oil and gas. In fact, a huge discovery of clean-burning, much-needed natural gas was discovered in that area and sits unproduced because of political action that led to a buyback of much of the lease area about 30 miles south of our coast.

Fortunately, some of those leases remain in private hands, and production of natural gas could begin in a year or two if our politicians gave the OK. Much of the production could take place with sub-sea completions that the military would find no more problematic than the Gulfstream pipeline, which traverses from Mobile to Tampa Bay supplying natural gas to Florida largely from Gulf production.

The Gulfstream pipeline construction project took place a few years ago and required industrial presence for many, many months in the significant military testing area.

We must stop the pandering and encourage our elected officials to listen to the 63 percent of Floridians who recently responded to a poll saying that drilling should be allowed off the coast of Florida.

The cliche that the U.S. "won't ever drill its way to energy independence" just doesn't stand up. The 1.5 million barrels per day of oil from central and western Gulf waters is equivalent to our imports from Saudi Arabia. According to conservative estimates from the U.S. Minerals Management Service, there are about 52 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf off the lower 48 states.

Our economic and national security is at stake, and the increased domestic production is needed now. It is possible to protect our environment and tourism if we work at this in a calm and reasoned manner. The Consumer Energy Alliance of Florida, a new and rapidly growing statewide coalition of businesses and organizations, supports the improved utilization, conservation and diversification of all domestic energy resources from nuclear to new and improved alternative sources. But to better bridge the time gap in reaching maximum benefit of such production, the alliance believes it is imperative that increased domestic oil and gas production be the immediate goal.

Floridians should let their elected officials know that they support this goal and want them to implement such policy to help hold down the skyrocketing cost of energy. It will not happen unless we make our voices heard now.

http://tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...26/1006/OPINION

Edited June 16, 2008 by GaryC

[GaryC 7]

In California one of the biggest opponents of off-shore drilling is actually Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, both parties in this state are strongly opposed to it because of this blowout near Santa Barbara in 1969:

http://www.sbwcn.org/spill.shtml

A lot has changed since 1969. Do you know that after hurricane Katrina that not one drop of oil was spilled despite the total destruction of many rigs? The fearmongering of the enviromentalists is not true and out dated.

The stuborness of the dems to shut us out of our own supplies isn't playing well with the public.

Again, Gary, the opposition to offshore drilling - at least as far as the FL shore is concerned - is very much bi-partisan. McSame hasn't proposed anything to address that opposition. And so it stands.

Indeed. Plus (to Gary)... you must also consider what will be a realistic level of relief at the pump. We've already covered that ANWR has not enough oil in its USGS estimate of 10 billion barrels total volume to supply the US Market for more than 5-10 years tops. This move by McCain is only intended at garnering votes from those that have problems with multiplication and division over this timescale.

With the expected electoral vetting and debating, the "proposal" will sink to the bottom of the lake.

Wrong again. Gas prices and the refusal of the left to drill for our own will be front and center in this election. It will get Obama defeated.

[GaryC 7]

Drilling for oil near Florida's shores?

Last Edited: Saturday, 14 Jun 2008, 1:33 PM EDT

Created: Saturday, 14 Jun 2008, 1:33 PM EDT

Should drilling for oil be allowed in the Gulf of Mexico?

TAMPA - Despite budget breaking prices at the pump, we're still driving, guzzling gas. So, President Bush us urging the U.S. to drill for more oil.

"We ought to be at the table as producers," President Bush said.

He wants to put more oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, drilling for "black gold" just miles from Florida's "white gold."

Polls show growing support.

The latest FOX 13/Rasmussen poll asks, "should the U.S. begin drilling for oil in protected areas?" 53 percent said yes, 33 percent said no, and 14 percent were not sure.

Senator Bill Nelson's been getting an earful about oil at recent town hall meetings, but he argues the only thing worse for Florida than $4 dollar gas is offshore drilling.

"Everything is a trade off. We don't want oil lapping up on the beaches where we have a $50 billion dollar a year tourism industry for our economy," Senator Nelson said.

Right now there are 3800 active rigs in the gulf, just not within 100 plus miles of Florida's coast.

They're near Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, which earn billions in royalties each year.

John McCain suggests giving Florida an even bigger kick back if we take a risk and allow drilling.

That puts McCain at odds with one of his potential running mates: Governor Charlie Crist.

"The last place I'd like to see happen would be off the coast of Florida," Governor Crist said.

Crist's position matches Barack Obama, who says no to drilling near Florida.

Regardless of what the presidential hopefuls say, the Cubans might beat us to it.

They're looking at drilling in the narrow 90 mile stretch between Havana and Key West, possibly sucking billions of barrels of oil from under us.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/N...mp;pageId=3.2.1

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

In California one of the biggest opponents of off-shore drilling is actually Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, both parties in this state are strongly opposed to it because of this blowout near Santa Barbara in 1969:

http://www.sbwcn.org/spill.shtml

A lot has changed since 1969. Do you know that after hurricane Katrina that not one drop of oil was spilled despite the total destruction of many rigs? The fearmongering of the enviromentalists is not true and out dated.

That may well be, but Prudhoe Bay in Alaska had it's largest spill when 200,000 gallons of crude spilled from a ruptured transit line - that happened in 2006.

Not far from 1969 Santa Barbara spill, 84,000 gallons spilled into a creek only this year in act of sabotage. Cleanup has not been swift: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-01-092.asp

The fact is, there are no guarantees that these things won't happen and most the areas off California, Florida and the Gulf are highly populated. I assume you would not be happy to live in a contaminated area and drink from contiminated water supplies.

[GaryC 7]

In California one of the biggest opponents of off-shore drilling is actually Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, both parties in this state are strongly opposed to it because of this blowout near Santa Barbara in 1969:

http://www.sbwcn.org/spill.shtml

A lot has changed since 1969. Do you know that after hurricane Katrina that not one drop of oil was spilled despite the total destruction of many rigs? The fearmongering of the enviromentalists is not true and out dated.

That may well be, but Prudhoe Bay in Alaska had it's largest spill when 200,000 gallons of crude spilled from a ruptured transit line - that happened in 2006.

Not far from 1969 Santa Barbara spill, 84,000 gallons spilled into a creek only this year in act of sabotage. Cleanup has not been swift: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-01-092.asp

The fact is, there are no guarantees that these things won't happen and most the areas off California, Florida and the Gulf are highly populated. I assume you would not be happy to live in a contaminated area and drink from contiminated water supplies.

As they say, sh!t happens. But unless we are willing to junk our cars and start walking it's a risk we need to take. It seems that one side of the argument is to drill and at the same time look for alternatives. But the other side just wants the price to go up without any attempts to slow it down with our own production. I think we need to get off our oil addiction. But even the most optimistic projections will put that years down the road. So what are we suppost to do in the mean time? Further enrich the Saudies while at the same time pay more and more for gas? I mean really, what justification is there for not drilling our own oil? All I get from the other side of the argument is it isn't much, or it isn't cost effective, or the people of that state don't want it (already shown to be not true BTW dog). If congress and Obama don't wake up they will be in for a very rude surprise come November. Their lame excuses are wearing thin.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

In California one of the biggest opponents of off-shore drilling is actually Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, both parties in this state are strongly opposed to it because of this blowout near Santa Barbara in 1969:

http://www.sbwcn.org/spill.shtml

A lot has changed since 1969. Do you know that after hurricane Katrina that not one drop of oil was spilled despite the total destruction of many rigs? The fearmongering of the enviromentalists is not true and out dated.

That may well be, but Prudhoe Bay in Alaska had it's largest spill when 200,000 gallons of crude spilled from a ruptured transit line - that happened in 2006.

Not far from 1969 Santa Barbara spill, 84,000 gallons spilled into a creek only this year in act of sabotage. Cleanup has not been swift: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-01-092.asp

The fact is, there are no guarantees that these things won't happen and most the areas off California, Florida and the Gulf are highly populated. I assume you would not be happy to live in a contaminated area and drink from contiminated water supplies.

As they say, sh!t happens. But unless we are willing to junk our cars and start walking it's a risk we need to take. It seems that one side of the argument is to drill and at the same time look for alternatives. But the other side just wants the price to go up without any attempts to slow it down with our own production. I think we need to get off our oil addiction. But even the most optimistic projections will put that years down the road. So what are we suppost to do in the mean time? Further enrich the Saudies while at the same time pay more and more for gas? I mean really, what justification is there for not drilling our own oil? All I get from the other side of the argument is it isn't much, or it isn't cost effective, or the people of that state don't want it (already shown to be not true BTW dog). If congress and Obama don't wake up they will be in for a very rude surprise come November. Their lame excuses are wearing thin.

I'm actually considering moving extremely close to my work so that I won't need to drive. Gary, we're climbing ever so close to $5/gal for regular unleaded. I have now incurred about a 35% increase in my gas expense per month based upon my everyday driving and going to and from work. Surely, there have to be others with a higher increase in cost per month.

[HAL 9000 96]

In California one of the biggest opponents of off-shore drilling is actually Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, both parties in this state are strongly opposed to it because of this blowout near Santa Barbara in 1969:

http://www.sbwcn.org/spill.shtml

A lot has changed since 1969. Do you know that after hurricane Katrina that not one drop of oil was spilled despite the total destruction of many rigs? The fearmongering of the enviromentalists is not true and out dated.

The stuborness of the dems to shut us out of our own supplies isn't playing well with the public.

Again, Gary, the opposition to offshore drilling - at least as far as the FL shore is concerned - is very much bi-partisan. McSame hasn't proposed anything to address that opposition. And so it stands.

Indeed. Plus (to Gary)... you must also consider what will be a realistic level of relief at the pump. We've already covered that ANWR has not enough oil in its USGS estimate of 10 billion barrels total volume to supply the US Market for more than 5-10 years tops. This move by McCain is only intended at garnering votes from those that have problems with multiplication and division over this timescale.

With the expected electoral vetting and debating, the "proposal" will sink to the bottom of the lake.

Wrong again. Gas prices and the refusal of the left to drill for our own will be front and center in this election. It will get Obama defeated.

Wrong! Wrong I tell you!

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

In California one of the biggest opponents of off-shore drilling is actually Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, both parties in this state are strongly opposed to it because of this blowout near Santa Barbara in 1969:

http://www.sbwcn.org/spill.shtml

A lot has changed since 1969. Do you know that after hurricane Katrina that not one drop of oil was spilled despite the total destruction of many rigs? The fearmongering of the enviromentalists is not true and out dated.

That may well be, but Prudhoe Bay in Alaska had it's largest spill when 200,000 gallons of crude spilled from a ruptured transit line - that happened in 2006.

Not far from 1969 Santa Barbara spill, 84,000 gallons spilled into a creek only this year in act of sabotage. Cleanup has not been swift: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2008/2008-04-01-092.asp

The fact is, there are no guarantees that these things won't happen and most the areas off California, Florida and the Gulf are highly populated. I assume you would not be happy to live in a contaminated area and drink from contiminated water supplies.

As they say, sh!t happens. But unless we are willing to junk our cars and start walking it's a risk we need to take. It seems that one side of the argument is to drill and at the same time look for alternatives. But the other side just wants the price to go up without any attempts to slow it down with our own production. I think we need to get off our oil addiction. But even the most optimistic projections will put that years down the road. So what are we suppost to do in the mean time? Further enrich the Saudies while at the same time pay more and more for gas? I mean really, what justification is there for not drilling our own oil? All I get from the other side of the argument is it isn't much, or it isn't cost effective, or the people of that state don't want it (already shown to be not true BTW dog). If congress and Obama don't wake up they will be in for a very rude surprise come November. Their lame excuses are wearing thin.

Yeah - $hit happens! It's okay if it's not your back yard.

If people trade their gas-guzzling cars/SUVs into more fuel efficient cars because of high gas prices reducing our dependence on foreign oil, the $4 gallon will be the best thing that could have happened.

I'm not sure I want to trash the environment to protect someone's "right" to drive a Hummer on cheap gas.

[GaryC 7]

In California one of the biggest opponents of off-shore drilling is actually Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, both parties in this state are strongly opposed to it because of this blowout near Santa Barbara in 1969:

http://www.sbwcn.org/spill.shtml

A lot has changed since 1969. Do you know that after hurricane Katrina that not one drop of oil was spilled despite the total destruction of many rigs? The fearmongering of the enviromentalists is not true and out dated.

The stuborness of the dems to shut us out of our own supplies isn't playing well with the public.

Again, Gary, the opposition to offshore drilling - at least as far as the FL shore is concerned - is very much bi-partisan. McSame hasn't proposed anything to address that opposition. And so it stands.

Indeed. Plus (to Gary)... you must also consider what will be a realistic level of relief at the pump. We've already covered that ANWR has not enough oil in its USGS estimate of 10 billion barrels total volume to supply the US Market for more than 5-10 years tops. This move by McCain is only intended at garnering votes from those that have problems with multiplication and division over this timescale.

With the expected electoral vetting and debating, the "proposal" will sink to the bottom of the lake.

Wrong again. Gas prices and the refusal of the left to drill for our own will be front and center in this election. It will get Obama defeated.

Wrong! Wrong I tell you!

Please keep thinking that. It will be your sides undoing.

[HAL 9000 96]

In California one of the biggest opponents of off-shore drilling is actually Arnold Schwarzenegger. In fact, both parties in this state are strongly opposed to it because of this blowout near Santa Barbara in 1969:

http://www.sbwcn.org/spill.shtml

A lot has changed since 1969. Do you know that after hurricane Katrina that not one drop of oil was spilled despite the total destruction of many rigs? The fearmongering of the enviromentalists is not true and out dated.

The stuborness of the dems to shut us out of our own supplies isn't playing well with the public.

Again, Gary, the opposition to offshore drilling - at least as far as the FL shore is concerned - is very much bi-partisan. McSame hasn't proposed anything to address that opposition. And so it stands.

Indeed. Plus (to Gary)... you must also consider what will be a realistic level of relief at the pump. We've already covered that ANWR has not enough oil in its USGS estimate of 10 billion barrels total volume to supply the US Market for more than 5-10 years tops. This move by McCain is only intended at garnering votes from those that have problems with multiplication and division over this timescale.

With the expected electoral vetting and debating, the "proposal" will sink to the bottom of the lake.

Wrong again. Gas prices and the refusal of the left to drill for our own will be front and center in this election. It will get Obama defeated.

Wrong! Wrong I tell you!

Please keep thinking that. It will be your sides undoing.

Funny the line is yours so by definition its yours to unravel. Anyway, dinner is served. Chill out Gary-san.