Dems to Reimpose oil Drilling ban

[David]

Gee. Everyone on this forum knew this was coming. Campaign is over. Now back to form.

Obama Interior Nominee to Consider New Ban on Oil Drilling in USA
Friday, January 16, 2009
By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer


Interior Secretary-designate Sen. Ken Salazar D-Colo., right, shares a laugh with Sen. Mark Udall D-Colo. on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 15, 2009, during Salazar's confirmation hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
(CNSNews.com) - President-elect Barack Obama’s secretary of the interior nominee, Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), said he will consider restoring parts of an expired federal ban on offshore oil drilling, but told CNSNews.com that he has “no idea” how much of the drilling restrictions should be reimposed.

Salazar spoke to CNSNews.com outside his confirmation hearing in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources on Thursday.

Back in June, President George W. Bush lifted an 18-year-old executive order banning new offshore drilling that had been put in place by his father, President George H.W. Bush, and extended by President Bill Clinton.

At the end of September, Congress, which was in the midst of crafting a $700 billion financial bailout and facing nationwide pressure to lower gas prices and remove the ban, allowed a 26-year old moratorium of offshore oil drilling that had been annually attached to the Interior Department funding bill, to expire. A more recent moratorium on developing shale-oil lands, which are mostly in the west, also was allowed to expire.

Since then, the Bureau of Land Management has allowed bidding on leases for oil exploration and some land has been leased.

Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), told CNSNews.com on Thursday that they are concerned the incoming Obama administration will try to restore the ban.

When Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) asked Salazar about a possible reinstatement of the ban, he said, “There are places in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) where it is appropriate for drilling.”

But when CNSNews.com asked Salazar how much of the ban he would push to restore as secretary of the interior, he said he did not know.

“I have no idea,” said Salazar.

Back in September, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), told CNSNews.com that restoring the ban on new offshore oil drilling leases “will be a top priority for discussion” in the Congress in 2009.

Republicans are concerned. “Yeah,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell (R- Ky.) when asked if the Obama administration and Salazar would try to restore the ban on offshore oil drilling.

“I think there is no question that the elimination of the offshore oil drilling ban was one of the biggest accomplishments of the not so accomplished 110th Congress,” said McConnell. “It would be a step in the wrong direction to restore the ban. Obviously, I and my colleagues are going to oppose that and hope that does not happen.”

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who helped lead the fight against renewing the ban in the House, told CNSNews.com that though he does not know if Salazar will push to restore the ban, he is concerned that the incoming administration, along with increased Democratic majorities in Congress, will try to bring the ban back.

“I am concerned that the incoming administration and the Democratic leadership will restore all or part of the moratorium on offshore drilling,” Pence told CNSNews.com. “The American people rose up last year during a crisis in gas prices and said that the American people want more access to American oil.”

Rep. Barney Frank said that though he is focusing on financial issues right now, he hopes the administration will try to restore a “general ban.”

“Obviously many of us want to have a general ban,” said Frank.

SOURCE

[Rifleman]

So much for "wanting Obama to succeed!" I think Mitch McConnell needs to change his plans from cooperation to standing up for America.

[David]

White House may put hold on offshore drilling plan
Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:46am IST

WASHINGTON, Jan 21 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama may order a hold on a proposal issued in the final days of the Bush administration to expand offshore drilling in previously banned areas, an Interior Department official told Reuters on Wednesday.

Shortly after being sworn in on Tuesday, Obama ordered all federal agencies and departments to halt pending regulations until they can be reviewed by incoming staff.

An Interior official said the department is waiting for clarification from the White House on whether a proposed draft of a five-year plan to lease areas in the Atlantic and Pacific waters for oil and natural gas drilling can go forward.

The preliminary plan would authorize 31 energy exploration lease sales between 2010 and 2015 for tracts along the east coast and off the coasts of Alaska and California.

Both presidential and congressional bans on drilling in most U.S. waters ended last year.

Separately, the Interior official said the department's plan to develop oil shale fields in the western United States may also be stopped by Obama's order. (Reporting by Ayesha Rascoe and Tom Doggett)

[David]

Bunch of idiots. We are all getting a good lesson in how Dems operate.

Offshore Calif. drilling deal could be scuttled
By NOAKI SCHWARTZ
An agreement paving the way for the first oil drilling off the California coast in nearly 40 years has run into unexpected opposition that may sink it altogether Thursday.

The plan, which could be worth billions, was announced last year by an unusual alliance of environmentalists and a drilling company. But supporters were blindsided by sudden opposition recently after it sailed through local approval and reached the state level.

The proposal hinges on a commitment from key environmental groups to lobby for expanded drilling off Santa Barbara if Plains Exploration & Production Co. would help fund hybrid buses, set aside thousands of acres of land and - most importantly - end all its local drilling by 2022.

"This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity," said attorney Linda Krop, who negotiated on behalf of three lead environmental groups. "If people really want to protect the coast from offshore oil and gas development, this is the best opportunity to do that."

State and federal lawmakers from California to Washington, D.C., are now challenging the plan, saying it could invite more offshore drilling along the California coast and undermine efforts to reinstate a federal drilling moratorium that was lifted by the Bush administration.

The three-member State Lands Commission has the power to scuttle the deal Thursday. Already the chairman, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, has said he'll vote against it. The other two members - state controller John Chiang and state finance director Michael Genest - have not disclosed their intentions but Genest is leaning for it and Chiang against, setting up the possibility the plan could die on a 2-1 vote.

Supporters, now including 25 environmental groups around the state, had thought the landmark partnership and terms of the deal would be enough to push it through the regulatory process.

The commission's staff has recommended rejection, saying there is no guarantee that the company, known as PXP, will have to eventually shut down operations. The staff's finding prompted two major environmental backers of the plan - the Sierra Club and the Planning and Conservation League - to send a letter to the commission this week saying their support was contingent on the terms being fully enforced.

The company had no comment ahead of the vote. Previously, it has called the plan a win-win deal for oil exploration and the environment.

The vote is scheduled for the day after the 40th anniversary of a massive oil spill off Santa Barbara that coated miles of beaches with oil and killed dolphins, seals and thousands of birds. The spill helped lead to the Clean Water Act and a moratorium on offshore drilling, galvanizing the modern environmental movement.

If approved by the lands commission, the proposal would then go before the California Coastal Commission, which regulates coastal development.

Opponents see Thursday's vote as critical. Garamendi believes "very, very strongly" that if the board approves the plan, drilling proponents will use the vote to push for more exploration in the West.

"I'm not going to go there," he said. "I'm not going to allow that argument to take place."

Chiang has the same concerns but has yet to decide how he will vote, spokesman Hallye Jordan said.

Genest will be represented at the meeting by his deputy, Tom Sheehy. He sees the deal as a financial boon to the cash-strapped state - perhaps $5 billion over the life of the project - and believes the terms are specific to Santa Barbara so it won't lead to drilling elsewhere.

"There's tremendous environmental benefits to be had on this project," Sheehy said, adding: "We can't turn a blind eye to the financial benefits."

Garamendi said he has spoken with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other members of the California congressional delegation who expressed "significant concern" that approving a drilling proposal could undercut their efforts to reintroduce a federal moratorium on the practice.

Rep. Lois Capps, a Democrat who represents Santa Barbara, supports the deal led by three groups, the Environmental Defense Center, Get Oil Out! and the Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara County. She warned both sides not to rush.

"I think if any decision is made on Thursday it will be to kill the deal," she said, adding that the commission could require more concessions from the company.

"Push them. See how far they'll go," Capps said.

Robert Deacon, a professor specializing in environmental economics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, understands the opposing arguments but thinks it's still a good project. He wondered whether the politicians are simply concerned about being seen as pro-drilling.

"We have an oil company that's agreed to environmental mitigations that more than offset any environmental harm the project would impose," he said. "And this assessment was made by some of the most vigilant environmental watchdogs."

SOURCE

[FoundingFather]

Were these people dropped on their heads at birth? What a bunch of

[David]

Neo luddites

Commission rejects plan to drill off Santa Barbara coast
State Lands board votes 2-1 against an oil company's proposal to close four platforms, and in turn be allowed to drill new wells in state waters.
By Steve Chawkins
January 30, 2009
Reporting from Santa Barbara -- It was cast as an unprecedented compromise, a deal that would allow a Texas oil company to sink new wells off the Santa Barbara coast in return for an agreement to shut down all four of its offshore platforms within 13 years.

But the State Lands Commission on Thursday killed the deal crafted by Santa Barbara's most vociferous anti-oil groups and Houston-based Plains Exploration and Production, closing the door on a plan that would have been the first approval to drill for oil in state waters since 1969.

SOURCE

[schaabdl]

Has anyone ever come up with a reason to leave the oil in the ground? Well, if the migration out of CA continues, then it won't matter that an oil rig goes up - they can't see them now and there won't be anyone to see them later!

[David]

Another brilliant move. The American people support this drilling. Remember during the campaign when Obama flip flopped on the issue? We said at that time he didn't mean it.

Salazar slows offshore-drilling plan
By Traci Watson, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration's controversial plan to expand offshore oil and gas drilling was delayed at least six months by the Obama administration.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar suggested that some drilling will eventually be allowed. But he said the agency will give the public until Sept. 23 to comment, instead of the Bush administration's deadline of March 23. The agency will hold public meetings before a decision is made.

Salazar's announcement hinders the drilling schedule announced by the Bush administration on Jan. 16, the last federal workday of its term. That plan, which would have allowed drilling on up to 300 million acres off the U.S. coast, was to have taken effect in mid-2010. It allotted 60 days for public input.

Then-president Bush set the plan in motion in July when the cost of oil soared to nearly $150 a barrel, saying the United States needed to increase domestic energy production. The Bush administration estimated that coastal areas off limits to drilling contain 18 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The Bush administration's plan "was a headlong rush of the worst kind," Salazar said. "It was rigged to force harried decisions based on bad information."

Salazar's announcement came as a relief to officials in the energy industry, who feared that he would call for a renewal of a presidential moratorium on drilling off the coast. Bush allowed the moratorium to expire last summer.

"We don't see this as a bad thing," said Nicolette Nye, spokeswoman for the National Ocean Industries Association, which promotes offshore drilling. "We're pleased the new administration is continuing with the … process."

Environmentalists, who want the moratorium reinstated, were disappointed Tuesday. Without a ban, "our coasts and oceans will be more vulnerable to oil damage than they have been since the Exxon Valdez spill," said Jacqueline Savitz of Oceana, an environmental group.

The Bush administration's plan opened up drilling along the California coast and the entire Eastern seaboard. Those areas have not seen new energy exploration for as many as 26 years because of congressional and presidential protections. Congress allowed its moratorium to lapse last year.

Salazar tried to allay environmental concerns while making it clear that energy exploration is valuable. "What this shows is a dramatic change from the last eight years … which was, 'Drill, drill, drill,' " he said. However, he said, "The oil and gas industry should not see the Obama administration as their enemy."

The administration also announced it will re-evaluate a rule published by the Bush administration Jan. 15 that would make it easier to modify their power plants without adding pollution controls.



Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...drilling_N.htm

[schaabdl]

And the oil stays in the ground serving no one. How does this reduce reliance on foreign oil? Alternatives are not here yet so let's keep what we have off the market also. Dumb.

[David]

How is this for stupid.

Obama: New Tax on Oil Drilling



By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 26, 2009

Filed at 11:34 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Offshore oil drilling would become more expensive, but scientists pursuing clean energy could get a windfall under President Barack Obama's proposed budget.

The proposal imposes new excise taxes on oil and gas pumped offshore. And oil companies would have to pay a fee on drilling leases they own but are not using.

While the budget summary gives no specific numbers, it calls for ''significant'' spending boosts for energy research. It also offers money for solar, biomass, geothermal, wind and clean coal programs, and modernizing the power grid.

The Energy Department's budget totals $26.3 billion, or $1.3 billion more than President George Bush proposed a year ago. Nearly two-thirds of the money goes for nuclear weapons activities.

[David]

Very quietly libs are choking off access to domestic oil and gas supplies. Stifling OCS drilling. Shale off limits. Oil and gas in Utah off limits. MSM draws near zero attention to the matter. If the American people were paying $4 a gallon for gas this would be front and center. Those bad old days are probably just months away from a return.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...tory?track=rss
From the Los Angeles Times

Administration blocks more Bush-era oil shale development leases
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar cancels what he calls a 'headlong rush' to develop in the Mountain West. He also announces more research-only leases in the region.
By Jim Tankersley and Nicholas Riccardi

February 26, 2009

Reporting from Washington and Denver — The Interior Department on Wednesday blocked a Bush administration plan to open parts of the Mountain West for oil shale development, announcing that it would first study the water, power and land-use issues that complicate one of the nation's most abundant but controversial untapped sources of energy.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled shale development leases on federal land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and launched a second round of leases in the region limited to research purposes. In doing so, he rebuked what he called former President George W. Bush's "headlong rush" to begin development.

"Those who have fantasized that oil shale is a panacea for America's energy needs have been living in a fantasy land," he said.

The move marked the third time in a month that the Obama administration has frozen late-term Bush decisions that sought to spur domestic energy development over objections from environmentalists.

President Obama has repeatedly pledged to reduce dependence on foreign oil, an effort he frequently links to his plans to spend billions on renewable-energy research, enhanced electricity transmission, efficiency improvement and other "green" areas of the economic stimulus bill.

That spending focuses almost exclusively on electricity use in homes and commercial buildings, but more than two-thirds of the oil consumed by the U.S. is devoted to transportation. Though Obama has called for accelerated efforts to develop electric cars, they are presently only a small fraction of all vehicles on the road.

That suggests the administration's energy initiatives, at least in the early stages, may not substantially reduce oil imports.

Glenn Vawter, executive director of the National Oil Shale Assn., said Salazar's decision on shale leases wasn't a surprise. But critics say the string of Interior announcements, which include canceling some oil leases near national parks and lengthening the public comments process for new offshore drilling, amount to reducing the effort to boost domestic oil production.

"Despite the valuable progress being made in the development of new energy sources and technologies, there is still no viable substitute for oil," Karen Harbert, president and chief executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, told a congressional hearing on offshore drilling Wednesday.

Interior Department aides noted that even Bush officials, testifying before Congress last year, estimated that oil shale wouldn't be commercially viable until 2016 at earliest. Salazar said the department was not "anti-development."

"We want to be thoughtful and deliberate as we move forward," he said.

He also said he expected plug-in electric vehicles to play a large role in the administration's energy independence plans.

Replacing Bush's leases with additional research leases, Salazar said, will allow the department to examine the unresolved issues of shale, major deposits of which are in Colorado and other mountain states. Among the issues: how much power and water it would require to extract -- and where, in the often-parched West, the water would come from.

Some studies of commercial shale development have suggested that the technology would consume huge quantities of water and produce mountains of potentially toxic waste material.

Environmentalists celebrated Wednesday's announcement.

"This is a huge step forward in protecting America's Western lands from oil shale development, which is nothing more than a dirty, expensive pipe dream," said Bobby McEnaney, lands advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council

[David]

Anti-oil factions at Interior cancel leases and delay economic progress
Posted by Newt Gingrich and Roy Innis March 25, 2009 14:51PM
Categories: Read & React

Who is really in charge of our public lands and resources? The American public -- or radical left?

The recession continues to worsen. Stores and companies are closing their doors. Millions are unemployed. Families are struggling to pay for homes, food, cars and fuel.

President Obama just signed a controversial, pork-laden, trillion-dollar "stimulus" package. We'll spend another $350 billion this year on imported oil.

And with the stroke of a pen, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled 77 Utah oil and gas leases that had gone through seven years of studies, negotiations and land use planning. In an instant, he eliminated hundreds of jobs, terminated access to vital oil and gas deposits, and deprived taxpayers of millions in lease bonus, rent, royalty and tax revenues.

The canceled leases represent one-third of acreage estimated to contain enough oil to fuel 3 million cars and enough natural gas to heat 14 million for 15 years. They were rejected because temporary drilling operations might be "visible" from several national parks more than a mile away.

Secretary Salazar is supposedly a moderate on land use and energy development. But this decision, after one week in office, suggests that he actually has strong anti-energy attitudes - or is too easily "persuaded" by environmental pressure groups.

They've already eliminated logging and mining in most of the West. They're now going after oil, gas, coal, oil shale and uranium - and after that ranching and snowmobiling.
Anti-energy zealots always say these areas only have three weeks or, at most, a few months of oil. But by this logic, why conserve, recycle or reduce pollution? Your personal contribution is trifling. Why plant corn or wheat? Your fields won't make a dent in world hunger.

Obviously, it's the cumulative impact that matters.

According to a 2008 Interior Department "inventory" of federal energy resources, 163 million acres of public lands are off limits to oil and gas leasing. That's more than the total area of Montana and Wyoming combined.

These land withdrawals make 62 percent of the oil and 41 percent of the natural gas in our nation's onshore public lands unavailable - along with the jobs and revenues that developing these vital resources would provide. Another 65 million acres are severely restricted - for an additional 30 percent of our onshore federal oil and 49 percent of our gas.

That's right. An area the size of Texas and Oklahoma, 92 percent of our onshore publicly owned oil, and 90 percent of our onshore natural gas - are off limits to Americans suffering through this recession.

This precedent to cancel leases (or never issue them), because drilling rigs might be visible from park and wilderness areas, threatens to make millions of additional acres off limits. Such short-sighted actions will destroy jobs, while driving up energy prices and the cost of everything we eat and do.

Offshore, Secretary Salazar has stalled oil and gas drilling yet again, by extending the comment period of the current leasing plan another eight months. Americans rose up successfully during the summer of 2008, to end the decades-long congressional offshore drilling ban, because it was bad policy. Salazar's actions suggest we might be headed toward new anti-energy policies.

Protecting the environment is crucial. And most people understand that, thanks to modern technologies, we can be pro-energy and protect the environment simultaneously.

For instance, while the left incites fear about offshore oil spills, the facts clearly show that current drilling techniques are enormously successful and incredibly safe. The same is true onshore.

In fact, three-fourths of Americans want more drilling, not less. They want out of this recession. They don't want it prolonged with anti-energy, anti-job, anti-revenue policies imposed on us by the radical left.

In the current economic gloom, there is no reason to revert back to the destructive policies that gave us $4-per-gallon gasoline and record-high heating bills.

Every American who supports a pro-energy agenda should contact the Department of Interior and tell the Secretary that developing all of our energy resources is the only reasonable option, if we want to create American jobs, improve the American economy, and support American national security.

Newt Gingrich is a former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and chairman of American Solutions for Winning the Future. Roy Innis is chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality and author of "Energy Keepers - Energy Killers: The New Civil Rights Battle."

SOURCE