Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: John McCain's Good Flip on Oil Exploration

  1. #1
    Patron SteaminDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Jan 08
    Posts
    219

    John McCain's Good Flip on Oil Exploration

    McCain wants to lift ban on offshore drilling
    Story Highlights
    President Bush plans to ask Congress to lift offshore drilling ban Wednesday

    McCain says he opposes ban; states should decide

    Current law bans drilling in most of the United States' coastal waters

    McCain would consider incentives for states that allow coastal exploration

    (CNN) -- Sen. John McCain on Tuesday proposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling as part of his plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil and help combat rising gas prices.

    "The stakes are high for our citizens and for our economy," McCain, the presumed Republican nominee for president, said at a press conference Tuesday in Houston, Texas.

    Hours later, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said President Bush on Wednesday will ask Congress to lift the ban on offshore drilling.

    Bush has long called for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, but Perino said he now wants to go further.

    "For years, the president has pushed Congress to expand our domestic oil supply, but Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked such action," she said.

    Earlier in the day, McCain, describing the high price of fuel, confused the cost of gallons versus barrels, which drew laughs from the crowd and the candidate himself. He quickly corrected himself.

    "And with gasoline running at more than $4 a barrel ... a gallon ... I wish ... $4 a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians," he said.

    "We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use."

    McCain's plan would let individual states decide whether to explore drilling possibilities. Watch a McCain adviser describe the proposal »

    The proposal could put McCain at odds with environmentalists who say it is incongruous with his plans to combat global warning. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a McCain ally, opposes offshore drilling.

    Florida Gov. Charlie Crist had expressed opposition to exploring coastal waters, but he said this week he supports McCain's plan to lift the moratorium and would not rule out letting his state choose to drill offshore.

    "It's the last thing in the world I'd like to do, but I also understand what people are paying at the pump, and I understand the drag it is on our economy," Crist told the St. Petersburg Times. "Something has to be done in a responsible, pragmatic way."

    The current law, which has been in effect since 1981, covers most of the country's coastal waters.

    Many officials from coastal states oppose offshore drilling because of the risk of oil spills. Environmentalists want offshore drilling to stop to protect oceans and beaches from further pollution.

    "The next president must be willing to break with the energy policies, not just of the current administration, but the administrations that preceded it, and lead a great national campaign to achieve energy security for America," McCain said Tuesday.

    McCain on Monday said incentives could possibly be provided for states that choose to permit exploration off their coasts, adding that "exploration is a step toward the longer-term goal."

    Tuesday's discussion marks the first in a series of talks about America's energy security that McCain will hold during the next two weeks as he lays out his plan to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil.

    McCain opposes drilling in some parts of the wilderness and says those areas must be left undisturbed.

    "When America set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we called it a 'refuge' for a reason," he said.

    McCain also criticized the energy policy of Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama.

    "He says that high oil prices are not the problem, but only that they rose too quickly. He doesn't support new domestic production. He doesn't support new nuclear plants. He doesn't support more traditional use of coal, either," McCain said.

    "So what does Sen. Obama support in energy policy? Well, for starters, he supported the energy bill of 2005 -- a grab bag of corporate favors that I opposed. And now he supports new taxes on energy producers. He wants a windfall profits tax on oil, to go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas. If the plan sounds familiar, it's because that was President Jimmy Carter's big idea too -- and a lot of good it did us."

    McCain argues that a windfall profits tax will only increase the country's dependence on foreign oil and be an obstacle to domestic exploration.

    "I'm all for recycling -- but it's better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970s," he said.

    Obama on Tuesday blasted McCain for changing his stance on offshore drilling.

    "John McCain's support of the moratorium on offshore drilling during his first presidential campaign was certainly laudable, but his decision to completely change his position and tell a group of Houston oil executives exactly what they wanted to hear today was the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades," he said.

    "It's another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil," he said.

    Democratic Florida Sen. Bill Nelson also criticized McCain's plan, saying it would ruin his state's tourism industry and would not solve the problem.

    "I thought John McCain was serious when he said he wanted to make America less dependent on oil. I didn't think he was a flip-flopper. He knows that more drilling isn't the solution to high gas prices," Nelson said Tuesday.

    Obama said a windfall profits tax would ease the burden of energy costs on working families. He also wants to invest in affordable, renewable energy sources.

    Controversy over offshore drilling surfaced in the United States in 1969, after a crack in the seafloor led to a huge oil spill off Santa Barbara, California.

    During the 1970s, when many Arab nations launched an oil embargo, many U.S. officials pushed for the exploration of offshore drilling of the coastal United States. Environmentalists responded with loud protests.

    CNN White House Correspondent Ed Henry contributed to this report
    Well, he has flipped for a good reason. He realizes that the American people are tired of rising gas prices and hearing excuses why we can not explore for more oil. Mr Obama doesn't seem to be concerned at all, and worried they just rose to fast.

    One other thing he should have flipped on was the whole "Climate Change is real" scam. Especially after hearing the results from the senate hearing that the "consensus" disagrees about the man made global warming issue, not the other way around as he and others seem to still believe and still keep spewing out that false statement.
    I personally don't by the excuse of if it is real then, and if it is not real then, gobbledygook he keeps talking about when he addresses people on the climate issue. That's just like saying: well, even though they cant prove it, and there is insurmountable evidence against it, we are going to go ahead with cap and trade, which will eventually hurt you in the pocket anyway. But don't worry, at least it isn't as bad as you would have it with the Dems' Carbon Tax idea.

    We have come a long way with environmental controls as well as the billions of dollars that have been invested. So why hamper progress by imposing "fee's" and this cap and trade crap? Why should there be any discussion about unilateral anything with man made global warming if they can not prove it? Why should we have to foot the bill for other country's lack of progress?

  2. #2
    Banned Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    13,048
    Well, he did let the Cap & Trade thing die pretty easily this time so maybe he's realized his mistake and is slowly moving away from his previous position.

    As far as I'm concerned, pushing for more nuke plants and more drilling is a huge plus in the McCain column. That's something I can almost get excited about.

    Maybe he's not as dumb as I had given him credit for.

    -dale

  3. #3
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,744
    He's realised that the greenies will NEVER vote for him anyway because he's Bush/Hitler2, and the centrists, while interested in ecology, are also pragmatists by definition. Nice move.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  4. #4
    Staff Emeritus Julie's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 03
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    10,832
    I signed the "Drill here now" petition.

  5. #5
    New Member
    Join Date
    22 Jun 08
    Posts
    1
    Please consider participating in our efforts to get our elected representatives to act according to the will of the American People.

    The American Driver - Content

    Safe Trails and God Bless,
    Fredrick (SilverSurfer) Schaffner
    silversurfer@theamericandriver.com

    STAND UP, SPEAK OUT OR ACCEPT WHAT COMES!!!
    The American Driver

  6. #6
    Colonist Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    02 Mar 08
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    2,095
    His Nuke one is the only one I see merit in, but like it or Lump it, Sinking holes off the coast isn't going to lower fuel prices. All he's hoping on is the supply & demand argument. It's total crap, it plays to the hope of the consumer, but the real money that will be changing hands will be in the form of business sponsorship and votes from vested interests in the drilling in the campaign I reckon. It's won't have bugger all effect, because as the sultinate says, Asking to increase production to reduce prices is like asking automobile factories to increase production to lower prices, despite every time we've raised production, the price itself has never dropped. Speculators will still exist.

    Fundamentally it's just dishonest, Oil spillage control is getting very good these days, which makes the greenies look irrevilent, heck, more marine life might grow around the pylons, but either way, you might as well not bother drilling on the basis of lower prices or eased demand, because that's complete ********.

    The only way to bring down the price of oil is to have a major operation in complete ownership of a government corporation, free from speculation, free from price collusion and complete disclosure of profits to the state. But ironically, that will probably never happen.

    A lot of consumers are going to beleive that drilling will help, and a lot of consumers are once again going to feel conned by implying that drilling will lower the cost.
    Last edited by Chunder; 23 Jun 08, at 05:23.

  7. #7
    Patron SteaminDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Jan 08
    Posts
    219

    Oil (read attatched link too)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chunder View Post
    His Nuke one is the only one I see merit in, but like it or Lump it, Sinking holes off the coast isn't going to lower fuel prices. All he's hoping on is the supply & demand argument. It's total crap, it plays to the hope of the consumer, but the real money that will be changing hands will be in the form of business sponsorship and votes from vested interests in the drilling in the campaign I reckon. It's won't have bugger all effect, because as the sultinate says, Asking to increase production to reduce prices is like asking automobile factories to increase production to lower prices, despite every time we've raised production, the price itself has never dropped. Speculators will still exist.

    Fundamentally it's just dishonest, Oil spillage control is getting very good these days, which makes the greenies look irrevilent, heck, more marine life might grow around the pylons, but either way, you might as well not bother drilling on the basis of lower prices or eased demand, because that's complete ********.

    The only way to bring down the price of oil is to have a major operation in complete ownership of a government corporation, free from speculation, free from price collusion and complete disclosure of profits to the state. But ironically, that will probably never happen.

    A lot of consumers are going to beleive that drilling will help, and a lot of consumers are once again going to feel conned by implying that drilling will lower the cost.
    Hi Chunder,

    I agree about the government owned corporation (GOC). There would still be a benefit of more available jobs, but on a federal level, as well as revenue. I would rather see that other than a state owned enterprise to prevent all the political bickering between the states.
    As far as drilling not helping...I have to disagree with you on that one, down the road it will lower cost, and prevent us from having to rely on others for our oil. If they would have started more exploration a long time ago, we could have been better off then we are now.

    Here is a document you all can read, and it was from back in 1987. It warned of higher oil prices due to the falling production of oil here in the US and the reliance upon foreign oil, among other things. It is a very long read mind you:

    http://http://www.princeton.edu/~ota.../8732/8732.PDF

    An interesting quote from the study.

    Table 6.— “Why Oil Prices Will lncrease”-
    Arguments Used by Forecasters of
    High Future Prices

    1. Past successes in exploration provided the Middle East
    with known oil reserves, both developed and undeveloped,
    well beyond the immediate needs of this region given their
    current rate of production, Outside of the Middle East, on
    the other hand, there is little excess production capacity
    and far less undeveloped reserves. This imbalance in both
    present and future production capacity, coupled with the
    worldwide slowdown in exploration and development
    caused by current low prices, and with the dominance of
    the Middle East in undiscovered resources, will lead
    inexorably to a resumption of OPEC market control and,
    subsequently, to higher prices.
    2. Oil demand is bound to increase during a period of low
    prices, planting the seed of future market tightening. Although
    the demand increase will not mirror the decrease
    caused by high prices, any expectations that our interest
    in energy efficiency and other energy savings is “locked
    into” the energy system are as incorrect as were past
    expectations that high levels of growth in oil demand would
    continue despite high prices.
    3. Low prices have already begun to stifle oil production in
    high cost areas; failure to continue intensive exploration
    will result in substantial losses in worldwide producing capacity
    within a few years.
    4. An increase in demand for OPEC oil of only about 5 mmbd
    caused by demand growth and loss in non-OPEC production
    capacity (or drop in production in cooperation with
    OPEC) would restore OPEC’s leverage in its efforts to influence
    world oil prices.
    5. Expectations that the availability of natural gas as a
    substitute boiler fuel will provide a buffer to oil price
    increases ignore the likely declines in gas production
    capacities as a result of the overall slump in drilling, especially
    in the United States, and, elsewhere, the difficulty—
    and great expense—of building the gas transmission infrastructure
    needed to allow effective competition with oil.
    6. The incentive for OPEC nations to manipulate production—
    i.e., the potential to maximize revenues over time because
    price increases can be balanced against lower sales volumes—
    is sufficiently high, and sufficiently well understood,
    to eventually lead to a higher level of cohesion and
    cooperation within OPEC.
    #6 - What has our President been doing? Pleading with OPEC to increase production. We shouldn't have to beg, or plead with anyone, and that is where being energy independent has it's benefits. Thank goodness over 50% of the power generated in the US comes from coal and not oil.

    SteaminDemon

  8. #8
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,018
    Please consider participating in our efforts to get our elected representatives to act according to the will of the American People.
    Following is the third statement we ask All Americans to send to their representatives. We also are asking for All Americans to participate every Wednesday in a slow-down action to demonstrate to our elected officials our strength in numbers and unity. When travelling our roadways...drive the legal minimum speed limit - staying to the right - on interstates and 5mph below the posted speed on all other roadways. This action..."civil obedience"...is within our state and federal laws, and will save you money on your fuel costs. It will generate the national media attention American citizens need to get our elected representatives attention, as well as show the world we are united as a nation.
    Drive the speed limit? Moon bat...
    Last edited by troung; 25 Jun 08, at 06:01.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  9. #9
    New Member
    Join Date
    28 Jun 08
    Posts
    13

    Ok

    So the world wants more and more oil. Which makes more sense try to get our economy over to something that doesnt use oil or just look for more oil. We can find oil all over if we want but we need to be proactive not reactive. We need to change to something beyond oil. Our economy has used and flourished on oil for a long time but its time for change there is a 1 billion plus economy waiting in the wings and everyone knows more oil will go where its worth more.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The biggest reason gas is too dam' expensive...
    By Bluesman in forum International Economy
    Replies: 297
    Last Post: 25 Jul 08,, 03:00
  2. Black Gold in the Black Hills?
    By dalem in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 18 Apr 08,, 08:01
  3. Alaska, gimme yer oil :)
    By Bill in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 24 Jan 06,, 16:14
  4. Why use force when talk works so well?
    By Leader in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 05 Dec 05,, 08:29
  5. UN coverup of Oil for Food scandal
    By Bill in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01 Jun 04,, 15:34

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •