"The President has failed in his economic policy, and now he wants to say, 'but for drilling in protected areas offshore, our economy would be thriving and the price of gas would be lower.' That hoax is unworthy of the serious debate we must have to relieve the pain of consumers at the pump and to promote energy independence."
"Reversing her position, Pelosi said she was willing to schedule a vote in the House of Representatives on legislation to expand offshore drilling, if the bill addressed other energy issues, such as extending tax credits for solar and wind energy and releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve."
I don't think she needs to be impeached; if the voters of her district want her in Congress, that's their problem. She just needs to be kept far away from any position with the word "leadership" implied in its title.
Submitted by RayCapps on Wed, 2008/08/13 - 7:57am.
A huge chunk of what drove the price of oil over $150 was simple speculation. Speculation is a psychological game as much or more than it is a rational one. When President BlunderBush removed the executive order banning offshore drilling, it had an immediate dampening effect on the speculators. Prices have dropped and are still dropping even in the face of the Georgia-Russia crisis.
The call that has to be made now is if the Congress follows suit and removes its blanket ban, will there be an echo effect, driving oil prices lower still? Or, contrarywise, has oil dropped as about as far as real market conditions will permit? If oil prices have "bottomed out" or nearly so, then Congress would be wiser to hold onto this psychological card until speculators reenter the market full strength. It's all similar to the mental game we've played in the past where we released some of our "strategic" reserve of oil, only this time without drawing down actual supplies. I'm not even close to being an expert on this particular commodity, so I honestly don't know what Pelosi ought to do.
I do know a few things that are bound to get lost in the rhetoric of an election year:
1. Removing the blanket ban on offshore drilling (or even ANWR) is not the same thing as granting a permit. Until and unless there's a willingness to issue a permit to drill, it's all symbolic.
2. Psychology works on voters as well as speculators. If Congress removes the blanket ban on offshore drilling, it takes away a potential wedge issue from the Republican arsenal among those who are more concerned with gas prices than the environment.
3. Working that in reverse, removing the blanket ban could have a chilling effect on voters who value the environment over the price of gas. I highly doubt this one since the folks who fall into this category have more than enough motivation on other issues to vote against the GOP no matter what the Dems do on this one.
4. Depending on how this resolution is worded, it might also open the door to exploring the extraction of the vast marine-methane deposits in the Gulf. That's a whole other argument since methane is also a greenhouse gas.
5. If this resolution could be paired with material support for expanding the use of clean fuels, they could enjoy a real gain at the expense of a symbolic concession.
6. Removing the blanket ban on offshore drilling while simultaneously drawing down the strategic petroleum reserve would be playing two psychological cards at once... probably not a good idea. Whatever amount of oil we could draw down from our reserve is going to be fairly small in comparison to either real supply or real demand. It's also going to be very short term. It's a psychological card, not one that materially inflences supply vs. demand on the global market. So why play both of them at the same time?
When President BlunderBush removed the executive order banning offshore drilling, it had an immediate dampening effect on the speculators.
I wouldn't be so quick to draw a conclusion about cause and effect on that one. The recent drop in oil prices also corresponds to reports of demand being lower than the same period last year. I don't think you can conclude that Bush's action caused the price of oil to drop.
Rescinding the ban on offshore drilling is a meaningless gimmick; it will have no meaningful effect on oil supplies, but it carries real and significant environmental risks. If Pelosi thinks that caving to vapid GOP talking points is more important than either a sound energy policy or environmental protection, then, yeah, she made the wrong decision.
Submitted by RayCapps on Wed, 2008/08/13 - 9:10am.
about other factors also being a possible contributor to the sudden exit of speculators from the market. I erred in presenting a monolithic cause to every specultor's psychology. But I've been chastised for overlong posts. :-)
Rescinding the ban on offshore drilling is a meaningless gimmick; it will have no meaningful effect on oil supplies, but it carries real and significant environmental risks. If Pelosi thinks that caving to vapid GOP talking points is more important than either a sound energy policy or environmental protection, then, yeah, she made the wrong decision.
I disagree a little here. Rescinding the ban on offshore drilling is a meaningless gimmick, period. Meaningless gimmicks can have real effects on irrational actors (like investors and voters). However, it will neither materially increase oil supplies nor will it carry any environmental risks at all. Lifting a blanket ban does nothing more than what it says. No environmental risks are undertaken until the Congress approves a permit to drill on these public lands.
No environmental risks are undertaken until the Congress approves a permit to drill on these public lands.
Hell, a permit is just a piece of paper. No environmental risks are undertaken until someone granted a permit actually starts poking holes in the seafloor. We could lift the ban and issue a million permits without creating any environmental risks at all. Meaningless shit is fucking awesome!
No environmental risks are undertaken until the Congress approves a permit to drill on these public lands.
Drilling permits are issued by the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, not Congress. Once the legal ban against offshore drilling is lifted, there's nothing preventing MMS from granting them; in fact, the process would then become one of nearly automatic bureaucratic rote, not policy. Are you suggesting offshore permits would not be granted once the ban is lifted?
Submitted by RayCapps on Wed, 2008/08/13 - 11:20am.
My understanding of the relationship between the DOI, of which the MMS is part, and the Congress is that the DOI manages the leasing and/or outright sale of mineral rights for lands that Congress has made available for private exploitation. In other words, the Congress would have to specifically offer up the mineral rights of a certain specified public land for sale/lease before the DOI could issue a permit to drill or otherwise excavate and remove minerals from the land (or "submerged lands" in the case of offshore drilling) to a bidding private entity. In other words, the default status of all mineral rights on federal land is "off limits" unless made otherwise by act of congress. If I'm wrong on that, and the default status of mineral rights on federal land is "available for lease/sale" unless specifically prohibited by the congress, then my whole argument on Pelosi's behalf collapses. In view of my understanding of the default status of federal lands, I considered the "ban" on offshore exploitation a redundancy - making any drilling a three step rather than a two step process, with two of those steps requiring acts of congress.
My only personal experience with mineral rights on public lands is fairly old, tangential at best, and involves the Cherokee National Forest rather than the Gulf Coast. If you are confident in your understanding of the mineral rights, I defer to you on that.
Offshore economic zones are authorized at a much larger regional level than protected Wilderness Areas (like Cherokee). The East Coast and Gulf zones are shown schematically here; so, if Congress says it's OK to drill in the Mid-Atlantic planning area, that would authorize leases from New Jersey to North Carolina. I believe each of those areas does have to be authorized by Congress individually, but they don't get involved at any more granular level than that.
Submitted by RayCapps on Wed, 2008/08/13 - 12:05pm.
If the blanket "ban" is removed, does that automatically authorize a resumption of drilling in any or all of these OCS planning areas or does that require a separate act of Congress? We're moving way out into an area of government activity I know very little about. It's interesting stuff, so educate me!
If all this possible action does is remove one layer of redundancy, Pelosi might be excused, if not justified, in taking this measure on either economic or political grounds. If this possible action would immediately remove all congressional barriers to the drilling, she's way off base - and out of character from what I've known of her.
If the blanket "ban" is removed, does that automatically authorize a resumption of drilling in any or all of these OCS planning areas or does that require a separate act of Congress?
Congress could pass a blanket OCS authorization and lift the ban in one fell swoop if they wanted to. For example, a bill currently pending in the Senate would open drilling in what appears to be the Mid Atlantic and South Atlantic areas, and lift the ban in one step (see the last paragraph here).
Submitted by RayCapps on Wed, 2008/08/13 - 12:58pm.
I was under the impression Pelosi was prepared to lift the Moratorium on offshore drilling and possibly repeal parts of the 2006 bill covering the Gulf (forget its congressional title). The Reuters article suggests she's prepared to move beyond removing the specific bans and authorizing an expansion of drilling. But then, at this point, I'm still not sure there's a difference between the two. I'm going to have set aside some time to learn the specifics of that. Hopefully I can find what I'm looking for without pestering Duncan for copies of relevant CRS reports.
Off topic: They really ought to do for CRS reports what they did for legislation. A Thomas.gov for these reports would be a huge benefit to people who are actually interested in what the government is up to and why. After all, we're paying for these studies.
General drilling bans will be political losers as long as gas remains $3.50+/gallon
Only if you allow Republicans to frame the discussion, which Democrats always do. All Democrats have to do is shift the focus to the longer term -- energy security for your children and grandchildren. The oil industry estimates that we have one trillion barrels of oil left in the ground, a 38-year supply at current usage. Democrats should cast themselves as the party that believes America can last longer than four more decades.
Submitted by Brian A. on Wed, 2008/08/13 - 12:26pm.
Only if you allow Republicans to frame the discussion, which Democrats always do.
Most voters simply want lower gas prices--they don't care how we get there.
When given the choice between drilling or some other, far-off solution, they will go with what intuitively seems the simplest (and quickest)--more oil wells.
Good luck trying to push wind farms in the face of immediate headwinds.
Submitted by tin cup on Wed, 2008/08/13 - 11:03am.
Nancy Pelosi is weak
Or........Nancy Pelosi is just a joke, Bizgrrl.
Then again, how is this any different from your presumed presidential candidate? He's now talking about possibly voting for offshore drilling. Why? Because McCain's killing him with this issue (thankfully). Here's a better one....."I'll filibuster the FISA bill to keep it from coming to a vote!" Not only did Obama not filibuster, he voted for it!!!
When your party's leaders are more interested in getting elected than standing by their principles (or morals, John Edwards), you should continue to observe this type of behavior.
Submitted by talidapali on Wed, 2008/08/13 - 2:48pm.
2 8-oz. containers of plain nondairy cream cheese (try Toffuti Better Than Cream Cheese) at room temperature
1 cup sugar
1 tsp. vanilla
4 Tbsp. lime juice (about 2 limes)
2 tsp. lime zest (about 2 limes)
2 Tbsp. cornstarch
1 9-inch vegan graham-cracker crust
3 to 4 kiwis and/or strawberries, sliced
• Preheat the oven to 375ºF.
• Blend the cream cheese, sugar, vanilla, lime juice, lime zest, and cornstarch in a blender until smooth. Pour the mixture into the crust.
• Place the filled pie shell on a cookie sheet (to catch spills) and bake for 45 minutes. Let cool.
• Refrigerate overnight, then top with the sliced fruit and serve.
Makes 8 servings
This is a vegan recipe.
_________________________________________________ "You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White" "I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
I don't think she needs to be impeached; if the voters of her district want her in Congress, that's their problem. She just needs to be kept far away from any position with the word "leadership" implied in its title.
~Russ
A huge chunk of what drove the price of oil over $150 was simple speculation. Speculation is a psychological game as much or more than it is a rational one. When President BlunderBush removed the executive order banning offshore drilling, it had an immediate dampening effect on the speculators. Prices have dropped and are still dropping even in the face of the Georgia-Russia crisis.
The call that has to be made now is if the Congress follows suit and removes its blanket ban, will there be an echo effect, driving oil prices lower still? Or, contrarywise, has oil dropped as about as far as real market conditions will permit? If oil prices have "bottomed out" or nearly so, then Congress would be wiser to hold onto this psychological card until speculators reenter the market full strength. It's all similar to the mental game we've played in the past where we released some of our "strategic" reserve of oil, only this time without drawing down actual supplies. I'm not even close to being an expert on this particular commodity, so I honestly don't know what Pelosi ought to do.
I do know a few things that are bound to get lost in the rhetoric of an election year:
1. Removing the blanket ban on offshore drilling (or even ANWR) is not the same thing as granting a permit. Until and unless there's a willingness to issue a permit to drill, it's all symbolic.
2. Psychology works on voters as well as speculators. If Congress removes the blanket ban on offshore drilling, it takes away a potential wedge issue from the Republican arsenal among those who are more concerned with gas prices than the environment.
3. Working that in reverse, removing the blanket ban could have a chilling effect on voters who value the environment over the price of gas. I highly doubt this one since the folks who fall into this category have more than enough motivation on other issues to vote against the GOP no matter what the Dems do on this one.
4. Depending on how this resolution is worded, it might also open the door to exploring the extraction of the vast marine-methane deposits in the Gulf. That's a whole other argument since methane is also a greenhouse gas.
5. If this resolution could be paired with material support for expanding the use of clean fuels, they could enjoy a real gain at the expense of a symbolic concession.
6. Removing the blanket ban on offshore drilling while simultaneously drawing down the strategic petroleum reserve would be playing two psychological cards at once... probably not a good idea. Whatever amount of oil we could draw down from our reserve is going to be fairly small in comparison to either real supply or real demand. It's also going to be very short term. It's a psychological card, not one that materially inflences supply vs. demand on the global market. So why play both of them at the same time?
I wouldn't be so quick to draw a conclusion about cause and effect on that one. The recent drop in oil prices also corresponds to reports of demand being lower than the same period last year. I don't think you can conclude that Bush's action caused the price of oil to drop.
Rescinding the ban on offshore drilling is a meaningless gimmick; it will have no meaningful effect on oil supplies, but it carries real and significant environmental risks. If Pelosi thinks that caving to vapid GOP talking points is more important than either a sound energy policy or environmental protection, then, yeah, she made the wrong decision.
~Russ
about other factors also being a possible contributor to the sudden exit of speculators from the market. I erred in presenting a monolithic cause to every specultor's psychology. But I've been chastised for overlong posts. :-)
I disagree a little here. Rescinding the ban on offshore drilling is a meaningless gimmick, period. Meaningless gimmicks can have real effects on irrational actors (like investors and voters). However, it will neither materially increase oil supplies nor will it carry any environmental risks at all. Lifting a blanket ban does nothing more than what it says. No environmental risks are undertaken until the Congress approves a permit to drill on these public lands.
No environmental risks are undertaken until the Congress approves a permit to drill on these public lands.
Hell, a permit is just a piece of paper. No environmental risks are undertaken until someone granted a permit actually starts poking holes in the seafloor. We could lift the ban and issue a million permits without creating any environmental risks at all. Meaningless shit is fucking awesome!
'cept after you issue the permit it's kinda hard to stop them from poking them holes in the sea floor.
after you issue the permit it's kinda hard to stop them from poking them holes
and after you lift drilling bans it's kinda hard to stop them from issuing permits
Drilling permits are issued by the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, not Congress. Once the legal ban against offshore drilling is lifted, there's nothing preventing MMS from granting them; in fact, the process would then become one of nearly automatic bureaucratic rote, not policy. Are you suggesting offshore permits would not be granted once the ban is lifted?
Seriously? Based on what?
~Russ
My understanding of the relationship between the DOI, of which the MMS is part, and the Congress is that the DOI manages the leasing and/or outright sale of mineral rights for lands that Congress has made available for private exploitation. In other words, the Congress would have to specifically offer up the mineral rights of a certain specified public land for sale/lease before the DOI could issue a permit to drill or otherwise excavate and remove minerals from the land (or "submerged lands" in the case of offshore drilling) to a bidding private entity. In other words, the default status of all mineral rights on federal land is "off limits" unless made otherwise by act of congress. If I'm wrong on that, and the default status of mineral rights on federal land is "available for lease/sale" unless specifically prohibited by the congress, then my whole argument on Pelosi's behalf collapses. In view of my understanding of the default status of federal lands, I considered the "ban" on offshore exploitation a redundancy - making any drilling a three step rather than a two step process, with two of those steps requiring acts of congress.
My only personal experience with mineral rights on public lands is fairly old, tangential at best, and involves the Cherokee National Forest rather than the Gulf Coast. If you are confident in your understanding of the mineral rights, I defer to you on that.
Offshore economic zones are authorized at a much larger regional level than protected Wilderness Areas (like Cherokee). The East Coast and Gulf zones are shown schematically here; so, if Congress says it's OK to drill in the Mid-Atlantic planning area, that would authorize leases from New Jersey to North Carolina. I believe each of those areas does have to be authorized by Congress individually, but they don't get involved at any more granular level than that.
~Russ
If the blanket "ban" is removed, does that automatically authorize a resumption of drilling in any or all of these OCS planning areas or does that require a separate act of Congress? We're moving way out into an area of government activity I know very little about. It's interesting stuff, so educate me!
If all this possible action does is remove one layer of redundancy, Pelosi might be excused, if not justified, in taking this measure on either economic or political grounds. If this possible action would immediately remove all congressional barriers to the drilling, she's way off base - and out of character from what I've known of her.
Congress could pass a blanket OCS authorization and lift the ban in one fell swoop if they wanted to. For example, a bill currently pending in the Senate would open drilling in what appears to be the Mid Atlantic and South Atlantic areas, and lift the ban in one step (see the last paragraph here).
~Russ
I was under the impression Pelosi was prepared to lift the Moratorium on offshore drilling and possibly repeal parts of the 2006 bill covering the Gulf (forget its congressional title). The Reuters article suggests she's prepared to move beyond removing the specific bans and authorizing an expansion of drilling. But then, at this point, I'm still not sure there's a difference between the two. I'm going to have set aside some time to learn the specifics of that. Hopefully I can find what I'm looking for without pestering Duncan for copies of relevant CRS reports.
Off topic: They really ought to do for CRS reports what they did for legislation. A Thomas.gov for these reports would be a huge benefit to people who are actually interested in what the government is up to and why. After all, we're paying for these studies.
General drilling bans will be political losers as long as gas remains $3.50+/gallon. Democratic candidates are realizing this as the election nears.
Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.
General drilling bans will be political losers as long as gas remains $3.50+/gallon
Only if you allow Republicans to frame the discussion, which Democrats always do. All Democrats have to do is shift the focus to the longer term -- energy security for your children and grandchildren. The oil industry estimates that we have one trillion barrels of oil left in the ground, a 38-year supply at current usage. Democrats should cast themselves as the party that believes America can last longer than four more decades.
Only if you allow Republicans to frame the discussion, which Democrats always do.
Most voters simply want lower gas prices--they don't care how we get there.
When given the choice between drilling or some other, far-off solution, they will go with what intuitively seems the simplest (and quickest)--more oil wells.
Good luck trying to push wind farms in the face of immediate headwinds.
Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.
Or........Nancy Pelosi is just a joke, Bizgrrl.
Then again, how is this any different from your presumed presidential candidate? He's now talking about possibly voting for offshore drilling. Why? Because McCain's killing him with this issue (thankfully). Here's a better one....."I'll filibuster the FISA bill to keep it from coming to a vote!" Not only did Obama not filibuster, he voted for it!!!
When your party's leaders are more interested in getting elected than standing by their principles (or morals, John Edwards), you should continue to observe this type of behavior.
• Preheat the oven to 375ºF.
• Blend the cream cheese, sugar, vanilla, lime juice, lime zest, and cornstarch in a blender until smooth. Pour the mixture into the crust.
• Place the filled pie shell on a cookie sheet (to catch spills) and bake for 45 minutes. Let cool.
• Refrigerate overnight, then top with the sliced fruit and serve.
Makes 8 servings
This is a vegan recipe.
_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
Post new comment