He's flip flopped and I think the American public will welcome this. He's for drilling offshore. The Cubans are doing it 90 miles away, the CHinese are doing it with the Cubans but America has its head firmly positioned in its own ass to even consider becoming independent of foreign oil. Even John McCain was against it.

Till now.

Quote :

"ARLINGTON, Va. - Sen. John McCain said Monday the federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling should be lifted, and individual states given the right to pursue energy exploration in waters near their own coasts. With gasoline prices rising and the United States chronically dependent on foreign oil, the Republican presidential contender said his proposal would "be very helpful in the short term resolving our energy crisis." McCain also suggested giving the states incentives, including a greater share of royalties paid by companies that drill for oil, as an incentive to permit exploration. Asked how far offshore states should be given control of drilling rights, he said that was a matter for negotiation. He offered no other details for his proposal, which he is expected to describe more fully on Tuesday in an energy speech. The current drilling moratorium is a perennial cause for controversy, pitting those who favor additional exploration on the one hand against environmentalists on the other. The current ban on offshore drilling covers an estimated 80 percent of U.S. coastal waters. Given Democratic opposition in Congress to ending it, the Bush administration and congressional Republicans have been seeking the type of state option that McCain endorsed. The GOP presidential candidate said a recent run-up in the price of oil was having an adverse effect on consumers. "We've seen the impact of it in the form of food prices, in the form of gasoline, in the form of threats of inflation and indeed indications of inflation, and we must we must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil," he told reporters. McCain has sought to carve out something of a middle road on energy issues, parting company with many Republicans by opposing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, for example and calling for measures to reduce greenhouse gases. The Senate last month rejected a GOP energy plan, 56-42, that included a provision similar to McCain's proposal. It would have allowed a state's governor to petition to have the federal moratorium lifted for waters off its coast. Republican senators argued there are some 14 billion barrels of recoverable oil available in waters now off limits. Also, the House has twice approved giving states the right to opt out of the federal ban, both when the GOP held the majority, but the proposal has never made it through the Senate. McCain made his remarks before leaving the Washington area for a pair of fundraisers in Dallas. Another fundraising event, originally set for the home of Clayton Williams in Midland, Texas, was pulled from the schedule after a controversy erupted over remarks the 1990 Texas GOP gubernatorial candidate made several years ago about rape. McCain sought to minimize the fallout, telling reporters that his aides had not known of the earlier comment when they scheduled the event "We'll do it someplace else and I understand he's not attending. That's pretty much the sum of it all," he said. He said he would hold another fundraising in the Midland area later this summer and Williams would not attend. Democrats have called on McCain to return more than $300,000 that Williams had raised for McCain from other individuals."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/06/16/20080616mccain-offshore0616-ON.html

$2.00/gal he was against it. $4.00/gal the situation changes. GOOD. FINALLY. While we explore alternative forms of energy, we should be tapping our own wells for our own financial stability. If the US was to make a real effort to drilling for oil, the price would go down TOMORROW because speculators would be gambling on an increased supply. Mere talk would draw the prices down.

John McCain, good move.

6/17/2008 8:48:24 AM

Quote :

"the CHinese are doing it with the Cubans"

care to back that up with anything?

i've read that this whole thing about china drilling near the us is a complete fabrication

6/17/2008 8:58:22 AM

http://www.wsicubaproject.org/cubanenergy_052506.cfm

6/17/2008 9:01:36 AM

hm. ok. thanks

6/17/2008 9:05:57 AM

Also, from a separate article:

Quote :

"McCain backs federal subsidies for building more nuclear power plants, which he considers the best way to reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. He plans to begin outlining his energy proposals in the first of three major speeches today in Houston. Aides said the centerpiece of the speech will be the proposal to lift the ban on drilling, but McCain will also have harsh words for market speculators who are driving up the cost of oil."

John McCain, you're winning me over.

He's spot on with what we need to do: increase our own oil production for the short term and invest in nuclear plants and biofuels for the future.

If you could take France and Brazil and mash them together to form us, I woudln't be opposed. France is run almost solely on nuclear power and Brazil is completely energy independent with their massive sugar based ethanol production.

6/17/2008 9:08:26 AM

Its funny how much fewer environmentalists we have at 4 bucks a gallon than at 2.

I agree with McCain on this. Its stupid not to.

When talking of drilling the shale oil, congress is weighing a artificial floor, meaning we wont pay less than 50 a barrell, to make it worth while for the businesses to get out the shale. Total horseshit. Our govt needs to stay out of this, other than allowing these companies to do thier jobs. imo

6/17/2008 9:10:50 AM

Quote :

"Its funny how much fewer environmentalists we have at 4 bucks a gallon than at 2."

what? i've seen a substantial rise in talk about environmental issues since gas has gotten more expensive. mostly because it's far cheaper to live efficiently these days.

Quote :

"John McCain, you're winning me over."

was there ever any doubt?

6/17/2008 9:15:12 AM

^ you hear more POLITICIANS talk about environmentalism. Not normal folks. $4.00/gal and we can relocate the elk in ANWR.

^ Yes.

6/17/2008 9:16:47 AM

^exactly. Popularity for offshore drilling and drilling at home as well as building new powerplants, refineries are all increasing.

6/17/2008 9:19:53 AM

Quote :

"you hear more POLITICIANS talk about environmentalism. "

and normal people

every car commercial talks about fuel economy now.

hell i swear i see a smart car every day now it seems.

chevy's coming out with an electric car in two years.

etc etc. people are becoming more conscious of their consumption out of necessity.

6/17/2008 9:21:17 AM

^ exactly. They're not buying hybrids for the environment, they're doing it for their wallet.

I think this is very good for us to move into. However, I think we are completely dumb to put drilling off our own shores out of the question. It's hypocrisy like that that makes me very angry at congress for interrogating oil execs when the problem is with the government.

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 9:25 AM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 9:24:46 AM

the price of food is going through the roof no matter now many crappy electric cars we make.

beer is going to cost alot and that sucks

6/17/2008 9:54:51 AM

If China is drilling Cuba, couldn't they possibly be sucking out of the same oil that is under us? It seems like if Cuba gets all they can get, especially mexico, then we won't have much around our edges.

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 10:56 AM. Reason : hmm]

6/17/2008 10:55:23 AM

Where does this oil go?

The refineries are running at full capacity, which is why we have to import some of our gasoline from foreign refineries, which adds up cost.

6/17/2008 11:01:04 AM

Additional oil on the market will force prices down because we'll be importing less from the middle east. Yes, we're maxed out on refineries, but that's looking at the micro issue.



^^ which is why we need to start drilling, and now.

6/17/2008 11:09:55 AM

I see this needs to be posted here

In a previous column, I stated that China, in partnership with Cuba, is drilling for oil 60 miles from the Florida coast. While Cuba has partnered with Chinese companies to drill in the Florida Straits, no Chinese company has been involved in Cuba's oil exploration that close to the U.S.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/was_it_really_the_worst_decisi.html

6/17/2008 11:11:37 AM

has no impact on the debate at hand. True or not true. Does not matter.

We need to be tapping that oil.

6/17/2008 11:12:23 AM

nukes, wind, solar, geothermal + plugin hybrids = enegry problems solved.

6/17/2008 11:14:03 AM

When you post such things as: "^^ which is why we need to start drilling, and now," it becomes completely germane to the debate.

6/17/2008 11:14:45 AM

Quote :

"Additional oil on the market will force prices down because we'll be importing less from the middle east. Yes, we're maxed out on refineries, but that's looking at the micro issue."

\

Then those near east countries decide to cut production. So you end up nowhere.

6/17/2008 11:15:23 AM

Are we maxing out our refineries at the moment? The last I read, they were running at 85% capacity and there was talk of shutting some down because they're more efficient to operate at 90+% capacity.

I also have read that a big reason we import so much gasoline from Europe is that they don't use it there. Europe is a big user of diesel and gas taxes are sky high. So, they have surplus gas produced in their refineries that they send here.

I'm not claiming to be an expert by any means. I just read a few articles about this stuff.

Quote :

"nukes, wind, solar, geothermal + plugin hybrids = enegry problems solved."

I would take wind out of that list. Environmentalists are the biggest opponents of wind farms. Plus it can't be counted on for base load. Passive solar should be a factor in every building & site design. Photovoltaic power plants will work in the desert southwest. But you can't really use them anywhere else in the country.

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 11:19 AM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 11:16:00 AM

even if that is not true and there seems to be conflicting opinions, why are we not drilling our own oil for our own future? Gas is at $4/gal now and it will only get worse unless we have a short and long term plan.

^^ because the saudis just agreed to increase oil output.

Why do you want to be completely controlled by the middle east? If we had our own wells and we were energy independent, OPEC can do what the hell it wants.

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 11:17 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 11:17 AM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 11:16:07 AM

6/17/2008 11:19:53 AM

nuclear ftw

6/17/2008 11:21:15 AM

Quote :

"Why do you want to be completely controlled by the middle east? If we had our own wells and we were energy independent, OPEC can do what the hell it wants."

OPEC is far more than just the Near East. Also, our largest import source is Canada.

6/17/2008 11:27:33 AM

Why are you against domestic drilling? Seems like everything I say you have something to retort, but you have offered absolutely no reasons to continue the status quo. If $4.00/gal is fine with you, then so be it. But I think it is shamefully irresponsible for our country to put red tape all over our road to energy independence.

6/17/2008 11:29:37 AM

Quote :

"red tape all over our road to energy independence."

I'd rather they put of red tape and come up with a real road to energy independence instead of putting a band aid on a huge gapping hole in the chest.

6/17/2008 11:35:45 AM

Pretty much anything that has read my posts know that I am probably the most environmentally savy person in TSB. Some of the kool-aid drinkers may find this hard if not impossible to believe but I am not opposed to the concept of offshore drilling. My only hang up about drilling on the shelf has been potential ecological impact. As far as I know proposed offshore drilling does not impact any reef systems nor any other environmentally sensitive areas. Also, I would give in on offshore drilling as a concession for stopping the crusade to drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. I was very pleased with McCain when I learned that he is an opponent to drilling in "ANWR" and I can only hope that he doesn't end up caving on that point just to please the ill-informed.

That said if the biggest complaint against offshore drilling is that it is going to mess up someone's ocean view then boo-fucking-hoo. From what I have read the chances of a spill of even leakage is fairly nominal. I would be more apt to believe we are doing more damage to our oceans by the garbage and toxins we dump into them everyday then would be felt by oil platforms. Now, I welcome anyone to find solid numbers to refute these claims.

6/17/2008 11:45:12 AM

I can't wait to get tarballs on our beaches.

6/17/2008 11:45:19 AM

^I remember that shit on the beaches of NJ when I was a young child. Freaking awesome I tell you

6/17/2008 11:59:01 AM

Quote :

"When talking of drilling the shale oil, congress is weighing a artificial floor, meaning we wont pay less than 50 a barrell, to make it worth while for the businesses to get out the shale. Total horseshit. Our govt needs to stay out of this, other than allowing these companies to do thier jobs. imo"

Bull shit, we need an artificial floor. Just promise to tax the rest of the stuff if it ever got that cheap. Just THINK ABOUT IT, if oil faces the possibility of going under $50 a barrel, will any economist invest in any new drilling or development of alternatives? NO!

I hate subsidies, and nationalization of oil is the worst idea ever, but when the behavior of a market stands a strong chance of seriously damaging the country action needs to be taken. Government should control markets closely tied to some general public interest, but do so by taxation and not subsidies.

With a $10 trillion dollar debt, I'm not worried about our government having too much money by more taxes. And with gas currently at $140 a barrel, I'm not sympathetic to someone who wants the chance to get it at < $100 a barrel if that comes at a price of increased volatility. No thanks. This is why we need a price floor - you can't reasonably talk about moving to alternatives without it. It's simply impossible.

Congress needs to set the price floor, they need to open up more American drilling, and they need to move out of the way so that states and the market can solve the problem long term.

Also, plug in hybrids are much further off than they should be. We need to kick our automakers in the balls. They're not doing enough and they're not doing it quick enough. So take down more trade barriers. Let the Japanese and the Koreans solve it if GM would rather down its own filth than innovate. Electric vehicles are a change that needs to be made - so the government needs to find a way to let someone do it. But this is a little hard to do when industry is driving the government and not people -> government -> free market. Tail wagging the dog, people.

6/17/2008 1:10:46 PM

Quote :

"With a $10 trillion dollar debt, I'm not worried about our government having too much money by more taxes."

The congressional record over the last 40 years or so will show that the amount of tax revenue we have is largely irrelevant to congress.

How do you propose, however, that we set a price floor for a globally traded commodity which we don't produce enough of to export? Sure, we could floor gasoline prices with a variable tax, but crude oil is a different issue all together.

Quote :

"We need to kick our automakers in the balls. They're not doing enough"

They did exactly what the public wanted them to do, produce SUVs and light trucks. If anything we need to kick ourselves in the balls instead of wagging our fingers at someone else for our own consumption decisions.

6/17/2008 1:44:28 PM

but individual responsibility is tough!

6/17/2008 1:50:50 PM

says the person who does not want to be individual responsible and wants the government to bail him out.

6/17/2008 1:57:51 PM

I do? Hardly! I want the government to do what it was supposed to do. Remove restrictions to drilling for our own oil.

6/17/2008 2:10:30 PM

because you do not want to be individual responsible for your driving and consumption of energy.

6/17/2008 2:15:12 PM

what a retarded thing to say. That's probably one of the most retarded things ever uttered on this board.

If the government places a ban on crops and farms and it artificially drives the price of food up becasue we import it all... you're going to blame the individual for wanting to remove government control so we can eat instead of "sucking it up and eating less"?

6/17/2008 2:28:03 PM

Drill here, drill now, pay less

Sign the petition:

http://www.AmericanSolutions.com/DrillNow

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, DC – American Solutions for Winning the Future announced today that more than half a million Americans have now signed a petition urging Congress to immediately start drilling for oil domestically to lower gas prices. The petition is part of the 'Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less' campaign American Solutions launched a few weeks ago. The petition reads: 'We, therefore, the undersigned citizens of the United States, petition the U.S. Congress to act immediately to lower gasoline prices (and diesel and other fuel prices) by authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries.' According to American Solutions' new research data, 81% of the American people support the U.S. using more of its own domestic energy resources, including the oil and coal already here, to combat the rising cost of energy and reduce dependence on foreign energy sources. This belief is so widespread it is supported by a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. 'Hard-working American families are struggling to pay the soaring prices for gas, diesel, food, electricity, and everything else affected by the high price of oil,' said Dave Ryan, American Solutions Executive Director. 'The voices of more than half a million Americans are united in demanding that Congress offer real solutions to our energy challenges, starting with taking immediate action to drill here and drill now.' As the 'Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less' petition drive continues to gain more momentum, American Solutions plans to deliver 3 million signatures to both parties at their national conventions."

6/17/2008 2:30:29 PM

Just throwing it out there, but contrary to popular conception, U.S. refineries are NOT running at full capacity.

In fact, according to the US EIA, we are currently running around 89% capacity.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_wiup_dcu_nus_w.htm

This is not far from where we were operating in June of last year. And it's much lower than the 95+% levels we running in the late 1990s.

Personally, I blame Paul Krugman. In one of his columns/blog posts on the Gas Tax Holiday he just kinda asserted that U.S. refineries run at capacity utilization rates near 100% in the summer and claimed that this implied that a summer reduction in gas taxes would only result in higher oil company profits (fully capacity means supply is totally inelastic means prices stay where they are). Then everyone picked it up as fact. I guess no one realizes that the EIA collects this information and that we don't have to guess about these things.

6/17/2008 2:30:59 PM

^ For me, it's more an issue of energy independence. The fundamentals of supply and demand are obviously at work in the market--but speculation is also having some effect. How much effect speculation is having, of course, is an open question and subject to debate.

BTW, I blame Krugman for a number of things--least of all this.

6/17/2008 2:37:30 PM

I am not so much against "Drill Now" even though I don't feel we can drill our way out of this problem so much as I am concerned with where we drill. And the 81% of the "drill now" folks are knee jerk about having to pay $Texas for gas so they are looking for what they think is going to be the quick fix. That is one of the sad side effects of being on this oil crack addiction.

6/17/2008 2:38:54 PM

^ "drill our way out"
"addiction to oil"

any other talking points you want to throw out that are about as used as a crack whore?

Yes, we can drill our way to energy independence, it's the knee jerk environmental people who think if we happen to tap a resource we'll napalm the entire state of alaska.

We can certainly drill our way to energy independence as brazil has with the appropriate resources dedicated to domestic oil drilling and research into flex fuels.

Addiction to oil? I suppose humans are innately addicted to food then. Oil is what runs this planet. Food is what runs the human body.

It's not an addiction, it's a necessity.

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 2:47 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 2:46:49 PM

The solution to drill more is nothing more than a band aid on a gapping chest wound. If the short-term problem was resolved we would become complacent again and act miffed once it happened again.

6/17/2008 2:49:29 PM

^^^ and ^ We should've started drilling (and other methods) in ANWR (and elsewhere) at least eight years ago. If you want to talk about knee-jerk reactions, watch a so-called environmentalist "react" to the ANWR proposal.

Claims that ANWR will be spoiled are simply unfounded.

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 2:52 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 2:51:21 PM

^^So you wouldn't see the benefit of encouraging people to monitor if not limit their oil/energy consumption or are just behind the notion of unabated fuel consumption and the consequences be damned? I am not trying to twist your words but rather trying to see if your type of mentality is capable of seeing a middle ground.

^ Any human development into the "ANWR" would spoil it. Nuff said.

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 2:52 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 2:51:46 PM

Quote :

"Oil is what runs this planet."

wat?

6/17/2008 2:51:49 PM

Quote :

"^^So you wouldn't see the benefit of encouraging people to monitor if not limit their oil/energy consumption or are just behind the notion of unabated fuel consumption and the consequences be damned? I am not trying to twist your words but rather trying to see if your type of mentality is capable of seeing a middle ground. ^ Any human development into the "ANWR" would spoil it. Nuff said."

Absolutely we should conserve. However, when we have the resources to fix this problem and don't... moreover actively work against solving this problem, while you have people on minimum wage paying $4 for a gallon of gas... this is a huge problem and one that should be a complete non issue.

6/17/2008 2:56:58 PM

Just a random thought: What if some oil company bought up some other Alaskan territory that was still pristine but not protected and traded it for acreage in ANWR? Would that be cool with environmentalists?

They are talking about using 13k acres? Buy 30k acres next to ANWR to compensate.

6/17/2008 2:57:17 PM

^^ And what are you going to do for the next ten years about gas prices? Because that is how long, at the most aggressive estimates, that it would take to get that oil to market. Plus, it would be on the world market and what if the dollar is still weak such that it is now? Or has Hannity not thought that far ahead for you?



[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 2:59:33 PM

FYI, conservatives are all for conservation--but conservation with limited government-mandated controls, fees, taxes, loss of freedom, and so on to coerce conservation.

Oil Battle Shapes Up Off Florida
China Eyes South America Amid Scramble for Wells
June 17, 2008

Quote :

"As state-owned energy companies from Vietnam, Malaysia, China, and Norway turn to the Western Hemisphere for oil opportunities, Senator McCain is moving to allow America to compete. Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, will today call for lifting the federal moratorium on oil exploration in America's coastal waters. 'There are areas off our coast that should be open to exploration,' Mr. McCain told reporters yesterday in Arlington, Va. The proposed policy comes at a time when oil companies from Europe and Asia are conducting new drilling in South America, leasing mineral rights off Cuba, and, in Norway's case, emerging as a major presence in U.S. territorial waters. In Colombia, state-owned oil companies from India and China jointly purchased oil fields from a Texan company for $850 million two years ago. Cuba has been leasing its on- and offshore mineral rights in recent years. The takers have included state-owned companies from China, Vietnam, India, Malaysia, and Norway. In America's territorial waters in the Gulf of Mexico, it is a British company that holds the most acres of mineral rights. According to numbers supplied by the Department of the Interior, a subsidiary of BP holds more than 3.2 million acres in leases in the gulf. The second-largest renter is California's Chevron, which lays claim to 2.3 million acres. Another foreign company, Royal Dutch Shell, holds the third most. As technological advancements have made deepwater drilling in the gulf viable, StatoilHydro, the Norwegian state-owned firm, is upping its position in the region. The company's 2007 annual report advertises that it is the 'fourth biggest deepwater player' in U.S. portions of the Gulf of Mexico. The Western Hemisphere's growing appeal for these foreign oil companies has many causes beyond deepwater drilling technology. They include increasing oil prices worldwide, declining reserves at home, Venezuela's willingness to reorient oil exports away from America, a major discovery off the shore of Brazil, as well as the perception that the risks of nationalization are lower in the region than perhaps before, several analysts said. 'With more and more countries vying for Western Hemisphere oil, our dependence on Middle East oil is going to grow substantially,' the director of an energy security think tank, the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, Gal Luft, said. When it comes to offshore drilling, American oil companies face hurdles set by Congress and the White House. American companies are prohibited from engaging with Cuba, which is eager to sell oil and gas concessions, by law. And the eastern portion of America's section of the Gulf — the part that is closest to Cuba and presumably would prove to have the same riches as Cuba's side — is off-limits to exploration by law. The Monroe Doctrine notwithstanding, Congress and the Bush administration have done little to keep European and Asian energy companies out of the Western Hemisphere. 'The United States has preached the market, and if Latin America is able to get better deals out of Europe, then Washington, in all good conscience, can't claim some kind of exclusive friendship, or hemispheric bond that gives it a privileged position,' the director of a Washington-based think tank, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Larry Birns, said. As it currently stands, in leasing rights to the Gulf of Mexico, the federal Department of the Interior sells to foreign oil companies, including state-owned ones, on equal footing with American companies. That free trade policy appears unlikely to change. Rather, the legislative efforts have been aimed at auctioning off mineral rights to more of America's waters, although it won't only be American companies bidding. 'I don't think there was so much a concern about them doing it as about us not being able to,' a Republican congressman from Arizona, Jeff Flake, who advocates lifting the embargo with Cuba for oil exploration and lifting the moratorium on coastal exploration. 'A national consensus seems to be forming that we have to change our policy relative to offshore exploration.' Mr. McCain's initiative, which is outlined in a memo prepared by an senior policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, would lift an exploration and drilling ban that extends about 200 miles from the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The moratorium on drilling was imposed by Congress in 1982 and has been extended annually since then. President George H.W. Bush issued his own executive order to the same effect in 1990. The moratorium have strong support from some states, particularly Florida, whose politicians have expressed concern about what offshore exploration and drilling might mean for its beaches. State's boundaries generally extend three to nine miles offshore, with the federal government's jurisdiction extending to 200 miles. 'The senator believes states are important stakeholders and should have a say,' Mr. Holtz-Eakin told The New York Sun. 'If they don't want to drill off their shores, they need not.' The issue emerged as a flare point last week when Vice President Cheney said China was drilling for oil off Cuba. Democrats hotly disputed that claim, but even they acknowledge China has leased exploration rights in the area. Mr. McCain has opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska."

http://www.nysun.com/business/oil-battle-shapes-up-off-florida/80151/

[Edited on June 17, 2008 at 3:03 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2008 3:03:11 PM