Since gutless wonders like Schumer, Emmanuel and assorted DNC morans have been in charge.

Like forever.

'Bama man don't nip this bullshit in the bud CA goes in play for McSame.

No one our hear will support any drilling. The dumfucks of Ohio can go back to sleep.

This will be a critical test for Mr. Magic.

Ok the thing thats going on in Florida, is that the offshore waters on the gulf side, near Tampa/St. Petersburg area, if Fla. can get their lines extended, would provide emminent domain to a 5 billion barrel dome they discovered two years ago beneath the gulf of Mexico.

Which is to say, Florida will likely vote for it even though most of the other Governors, like California, etc. will not.

This thing may simply - not have the votes, right now. The states should be able to decide, true enough - but the Fed has a role to play as well regulating it all for safety and EPA concern so in my view this is a tricky one.

I'd argue the best position is to push it to the states and let them decide. That will give an effective ban on drilling, with a few exceptions.

Thats hard to do as a candidate...

And as an engineer I can tell you that 4 years from now the problem will largely fix itself via serial hybrid cars and new electric generation.

Wind even domestic homeowner based wind is economically viable now.  Solar is almost there.  45 Nuke plants is a massive step.

Chevy volt comes out in 2010, prius will be plug in by then too, Mitsubishi wants in to that race with a serial plug in too.  Even the hydrogen cars provide the ability to run off electricity in the form of home hydrogen generators.

Let me repeat myself by 2012 this issue will largely be over and who ever is in the white house will own it.

Try and see the forest not the trees.

I am the most liberal person I know, I even studied environmental science in college, and we need oil. It's a fact. I would love if we could move off oil right now. We cannot. People going around saying "we deserve this" are mostly right, but seriously look how elitist that sounds. It makes Democrats look like we do not care about the 'little person'. Last time I checked we are the only political party who does. Obama may be correct on the issue, but we will need the oil anyway. The purity wing is definitely out and I am afraid they don't see Obama's flaws at all.

Tie the offshore drilling to CAFE standards, give it a try. The Democratic congress needs to do something in conjunction with the Obama campaign or we look really weak on this issue, when we should be kicking ass on economic issues!

I am also one of the more liberal/progressive people around -- ask anyone who knows me.

One of the precepts of being a progressive for me is caring about and understanding people -- little, big, in-between.

One thing I know and can see is that people are suffering because of high gas prices. People have to get to work, food has to get to tables, other commodities need to be brought to consumers. All are affected by the price of oil. That will not change unless we do something about it in the short run as well as the long run. It is a matter of the urgency of now.

If it would alleviate people's suffering and anxiety, if it would make it easier for people to get to work, buy food, etc. Then I am all for drilling in ANWAR, off-shore drilling, and whatever else will make life easier.

Make it part of a long-term, comprehensive plan which includes research and funding for alternatives. Fine.

But oil needs have got to be addressed now.

How selfish is it to say that people deserve this crisis? How little compassion do you have? Are you so removed from your fellow human beings that you don't really care about their lives? Instead you care more for your ideology, your sense of purity, your imagined high-ground position.

And, if your ideology also has a global component, then tell me: why is it only the US that should be spared the supposed environmental horrors of drilling? Aren't all environments worthy of protection?

I'm afraid that there is a lot of selfishness, ideological self-delusion, lack of compassion, and an inability to understand compromise and reality going around and we need more than that right now.

Do you think it is right our government allows CAFE to be completely ineffectual?

Doesnt it make you mad that the police here drive V-8 Crown Vics and the police in Germany drive 45mpg Diesel BMW's?

Jerome, you know oil is a global product, what you are proposing is adding more oil to the international market, because if our refineries our at max capacity, more available crude will just be exported.

Thank you. It seems the purity wing of the Democratic Party is out in force. Seriously, this is a MAJOR losing issue with us. I am 100% against ANWR, though I'd have to say the public is probably going to start backing that too. Offshore drilling, however, provides jobs and oil, which we need and to the public...seems less disruptive than ANWR. I'd love to not need it, but lets be realistic.

We have oil, we're just finally starting to pay more for it, like the rest of the world.  I'm concerned about gas prices, because that hurts people who need to get to work every day and heat their homes.  But no one claims that these measures will actually reduce gas prices this decade.  Plus there are plenty of other ways to help people address those economic pressures.  Like, for example, a middle class tax cut.  Given that, I really don't see any policy argument in favor of this action.  

If you want to argue its the right political action, then fine.  You're a political pro, so I'll readily concede you may be correct in that assessment.  But I don't see how you can call this anything but a gimmick.  And I think it's unfair to label anyone that disagrees with you an ideologue.  

Solar Grand Plan

We do not.

Please educate yourself and stop buying off on the idiocy of oil.

Every hear of 'Peak Oil'.

It's real and we've got to get off The Road to Olduvai Gorge....

Before it's too late.

To some extent, yes, but let's not shortchange our potential to do things right.

In 1961, Kennedy decided to put a man on the Moon.  The Eagle landed in 1969.  If begun today, right now, drilling in ANWR or off-coast Florida wouldn't likely have an impact on gas prices for a decade.  With some agressive initiatives, we could significantly reduce our oil dependance in a relatively short time.  

Trouble is, we didn't have a hard-wired multi-gazillion dollar industry whose interests were AGAINST lunar landings intertwined with the federal government in the 60s.

Despite that, and given the very real environmental risks, neither ANWR or offshore drilling are particularly good solutions, even in the short term.

would run the risks that offshore drilling entails.

And for oil that won't be available for 10 years, and for amounts that will make no difference.

RICHMOND, June 18 -- Senate candidate Mark R. Warner said Wednesday that the U.S. government needs to get tougher with OPEC and better regulate investors speculating in the oil market to drive down gas prices.

Warner (D) unveiled his energy policy the same day that President Bush called for Congress to remove the federal ban on offshore drilling, including areas off the Virginia coastline. Warner said he supports offshore exploration for oil and natural gas but stopped short of endorsing drilling, expressing environmental concerns and saying it would have no immediate impact on gas prices.

[...]

Warner hit back at Gilmore on Wednesday, calling his solution shortsighted and unrealistic. Warner instead unveiled a multifaceted proposal that seeks to reduce the U.S. reliance on oil.

"The Bush-Cheney energy policies not only sound like they were written by Big Oil, they were written by Big Oil, and we are paying at the pumps," Warner said in a speech at the Science Museum of Virginia in Richmond. "My opponent in this race, who was the biggest proponent of sound-bite solutions, is now advocating the continuation of those very policies right now. I hope this becomes one of the defining issues of this Senate race."

Tim Craig - Gas Prices Energizing Va. Senate Race Washington Post 19 Jun 08

Its pandering.

And "Solution" to what?  It doesn't solve anything.  Our oil dependence isn't going to be solved by gimmicks and the US isn't dumb enough to think it will be.  Pandering to the Republican position - reactive strategy - instead of pointing out McCain's "flip-flop" and that its a foolish placebo that just tries to hide the real problems we have - a proactive strategy - is the kind of thinking that leads to Republican-lite, losing Dems.

Sticking to your guns, especially when you're right, is something Americans admire and its one trait Obama needs to not sacrifice, especially to simply react to Republican attempts to set the topic on an issue (enviromental/gas prices)  Obama will win in November, at the cost of his image as a genuine agent for a change in both the way politics work and the policies of Bush.

this post and your prior support for the gas tax holiday suggest you don't know anything about this issue.

This is not a short term solution.  It will have no impact on the price of oil.  No one knows how much there is, and the oil compaines aren't even drilling where they are currently allowed to drill in the gulf.

Frankly, your support is based on ignorance.

The "public" isn't as dumb as people think.  "Flip-flopping" is what Obama would be doing if he compromised on his right and correct position because of some very short term polling (especially in that it contradicts long term trends in Florida and CA).

My Prius gets 55 silly miles to the gallon! So hows that compare to your Silly, 47mpg gas guzzler! LOL :-)

Plus, if we nail McCain on supporting it for Florida, we still kick the everloving shit out of him in the process. Everybody wins!

Agreed 100%. Definitely not near FL, but otherwise spot on.

Florida is not a special case. The massive, newly discovered reserves off her coast are the white elephant in the room. Seriously, its 5 billion barrels of oil down there.

This one is an unadulterated crock.  Roll up your pantlegs while I shovel.

Let me say, first off, anyone who says drilling is, to quote the disingenuous bobbing, weaving, flip-flopping cobra McCain, a "short-term solution" is delusional.  Any land -- or for that matter, portion of the seabed -- released for drilling today won't produce a drop of oil for a decade.  At least that's what the oil lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, says.  Since they get paid to be optimists about oil, you have to figure a realistic estimate would probably be longer. Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/stor y/41379.html

Second, as with any other resource, certain extraction methods are more expensive than others, and will only be employed when they become profitable.  Offshore drilling is expensive.  The more remote the site, the more costly.  Offshore drilling only makes economic sense if the oil tapped can be sold at a high price. Once the price of oil drops (unlikely, but let's think hypothetically), the offshore drills operate at a loss, they get shut down, and prices go up again.  Provided it even makes economic sense to drill offshore, analysts on all sides agree it is a political, regulatory and environmental powderkeg.  If exploration were allowed, permits would have to be granted, and before that environmental concerns must be addressed.  Think about it this way: you're the governor of Florida or North Carolina, whose coastal economy has billions of dollars tied up in high-value housing and tourism.  Are you willing to risk the imagined or real consequences of offshore drilling rigs (I have friends who've been to the beaches in Texas where the tar balls roll ashore all day; people prefer Florida and Carolina beaches for a reason). Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/stor y/41451.html

Third, there's probably not a lot of oil out there.  The Interior Department offered a wide range of estimates of how much oil might be within reach of U.S. offshore drilling in a 2006 report. It estimated that the Outer Continental Shelf could hold 115.4 billion barrels. However, it also estimated that recoverable reserves off U.S. coasts in areas now banned (well, it's actually a moratorium, dating from 1981, imposed by Ronald Reagan of all people) from production probably hold only about 19 billion barrels.  So do the math on that.  The world consumes about 86 million barrels a day. The U.S. share of that is about 20.6 million barrels, 60 percent of them from foreign sources.  One thousand million barrels equals 1 billion, so if there are 19 billion barrels in the areas McCain would open to drilling, that's enough to provide about 920 days, or about 2.5 years, of current U.S. consumption.  That's right. Drill in all the places you can't drill now and you get (gong!) a whopping 2.5 years worth of oil. And that's assuming consumption levels stay static, which they have never done.  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World _energy_consumption%2C_1970-2025%2C_EIA. png

Fourth, there are not enough ships to carry the oil.  Let's assume you build the wells (remember, that's 7-10 years out), make it economically feasible (i.e. continued high prices), and are willing to go after that slim supply (2.5 years worth), you still need a highly specialized craft to go out there and do the drilling.  The world's current supply of drill-ships is booked solid for the next five years. It's a critical bottleneck that has frustrated oil executives by constraining their ability to even go after known reserves, let alone begin exploring for new sources.  Let me repeat that.  You can't even begin drilling currently known reserves offshore for the next FIVE years because of a shortage of drill ships.  Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/busine ss/19drillship.html?_r=1&hp&oref =slogin

Fifth, while we're on the topic of shipping, per the Jones Act, only U.S.-flagged oil tankers can go out to a drilling rig and bring the extracted oil to a U.S. port.  I have no data on whether there are enough U.S. flagged oil tankers available, so I'll leave it an open question, but I'd wager a weeks wages that the answer will be similar to that of the availability of drill-ships.

Sixth, the assertion by the McCain campaign, in careful, lawyerly words, that "hurricane Katrina did not cause any oil spills from the offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico" is disingenuous, if not an outright lie.  The reason: the offshore rigs all shut down, were abandoned or went into other failsafe modes in anticipation of the storm, as they always do for safety's sake.  Yet, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, Hurricane Katrina caused what amounts to one of the largest oil spills in U.S. history, 6.5 million gallons, from the rupture of near-shore storage tanks and pipelines, that exist to serve the offshore rigs. Source: http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/ 050915.asp

Seventh, and perhaps the biggest argument against dropping the moratorium, the oil companies haven't developed the leases they currently hold.  Political hay is being made right now about the 1981 moratorium on drilling in certain coastal areas.  Other areas are not only open to drilling, but the leases and drilling permits have already been issued.  And they are not being drilled.  In fact, only 17% of the leased areas is in production.  So, with about 33 million acres of offshore areas already available to drill and not being drilled, why does the oil and gas industry need to have access to still more?  The fact is that nearly 25 BILLION barrels of oil off the coast of the United States is currently available for drilling ... and industry is not drilling it.

This is the story on dry land as well.  More than 44 million acres of onshore public lands are leased for oil and gas development and yet most of it is not being drilled.  All told (onshore and offshore), 68 million acres are leased and sitting idle.  Over 10,000 permits are currently 'stockpiled' by industry. But still they want more.  Between 1999 and 2007, the number of drilling permits issued for development of public lands increased by more than 361%.

Let me ask this:  Did you see your gasoline costs drop?  How about your electricity costs?  Propane?  natural gas?  Uh...no. There is absolutely no correlation between the industrialization of public lands and the price of fossil fuels.  
It has been estimated that if all of those currently inactive leases were drilled, the USA would produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas EVERY DAY, accounting for a doubling of US oil production and a 75% increase in US natural gas production.  The Minerals Management Service tells us that about 80% of fossil fuels available in offshore are currently available for development.  I forgot to mention about offshore natural gas.  Most of the natural gas occurring offshore (over 328 TRILLION cubic feet - an eleven year supply at current consumption rates) is currently available for leasing and development.  Like the oil I mention above, the industry is not going after it.  Source: Energy Information Administration, Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,May 2008; Inventory of Onshore Federal Oil and Natural Gas Resources and Restrictions to Their Development, U.S. Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Energy; May 2008.
Finally, the last argument the drill-lovers have to fall back on is a belief that the current oil price spike is not just supply (or supply chain) and demand, but being pumped up by speculation.  There's a lot of debate on this, and I'm actually leaning toward agreement with that narrative, and think Paul Krugman is a fool for arguing otherwise in recent NY Times columns.  But answer this: if drilling is necessary to wring speculation out of the price, wouldn't a big investment in real solutions like alternative, non-oil-based energy do exactly the same thing?
I'll sum up:

THIS

IS

A

FRAUD

There is no way offshore drilling, one of the most expensive methods of extraction there is, will reduce gasoline prices.  Not in the long term, as the data shows, and for sure not in the short term, as simple laws of physics won't allow.

Oil companies have access to oil and gas resources that they are not extracting, so that begs the question, why?  Is it just greed to keep prices, and therefore profits, artificially high?  I tend not to buy into greed arguments, since it implies the ability to read the emotions of C-level people who are a decidedly odd and tough-to-read lot to begin with.

Besides, the answer is a lot simpler, and is more black-and-white.  It's because that is how the business model of the oil industry is currently designed.  

Someone told me once that the real value of McDonald's is not in selling burgers and sodas.  That only pays the rent, so to speak.  The real value is in the land all the stores are built on: high-value, commercially-zoned, high-visibility parcels, usually in high-traffic areas near interstate highways.

The oil industry works the same way.  The real money is not in the exploring, extracting, pumping and retailing of oil and gasoline.  Those are just pass-throughs.  The real family jewels for the oil industry is the land -- large tracts, zoned for industrial extraction, with mineral rights and proven or suspected resources underneath.  What a coup to gain new lands now, and begin extracting oil from them 15 or 20 years hence, when prices and profits are even higher!

The fact that you can do this while in the same fell swoop embarrass Barack Obama, take down the Congressional Democrats, increase corporate profit and further drive up the price of energy, well, that's all just a bonus.  The fact that this became a topic of discussion among the punditocracy at this time and place, as opposed to, say, five or six years ago when anyone could have seen it coming, should be all the proof you need that this is nothing more than a political ploy and a land grab.  But if you need more evidence, note that both McCain and Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, both staunch opponents of drilling in ANWR and offshore, respectively, have just last week changed their tunes 180 degrees.

So quick was the flip by McCain, they are calling it McCain vs. McCain: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18 /mccains-offshore-drilling_n_107872.html

And you will note that, in all of this, I did not make one single, leftist, environmental, tree-hugging, save-the-planet-for-the-unborn-gay-baby- harp-seals argument.

God, I hate batting down these stupid GOP-driven narratives.  I feel like I'm playing whack-a-mole.

China's hike of 18% makes a small dent in subsidies that keep Chinese prices half what they are here. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Burma, Malaysia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Taiwan, South Korea, Trinidad and Tobago, Brunei and Nigeria all subsidize fuel prices. This really encourages demand growth putting additional pressure on prices. Massive subsidies in oil producing nations greatly reduces the amount that they can export.

The drill offshore effort will when it meets competing local economic interests that would lose billions with wells appearing on the coastline will produce very little but consume lots of time, money and energy. A distraction from solving the real problem.

It's not the sight of the oil rigs that's the problem.  It's the constant spillage in small amounts, a natural consequence of the entire enterprise (drilling, piping, transfering oil onto tankers, etc.), that causes floating tar balls to roll up on the beaches at every tide.

There's a reason people prefer the beaches in Florida and the Carolinas.  It's because the ones in Texas are pretty gross.