In Easing Offshore Drilling Ban, House Also Expands Energy Exploration Onshore

Reader Comments
Back to article

The White House and their supporters is arrogant enough to believe we Americans think we can drill our way to peace and away from oil wars like the one in Iraq. We need to attack our energy problem with the same enthusiasm we attacked Sadam in 2003. Where would we be if we invested a trillion dollars in energy research like we spent on the Iraq war?

Archie Haase of ME 4:20PM September 17, 2008

I'm just a layman, but the solution seems obvious to me. Will ivesting billions in the development of renewable energy sources and technology not create new industries, new jobs, lower consumer demand for oil, greater US energy security, more tax revenue and a more sustainable energy policy moving foward?
Why would we want to drill for more oil? Lower the cost? it would take years of production to recoup the cost of exploration. The glory days of plentiful oil are over and they're extremely unlikely to return. Environmental impact aside, the real damage will occur from the inescapable fact that oil is a finite commodity, we're now competing with a surging Chinese and Indian middle class population for it, and we're already behind the curve in finding solutions to its absence.
More drilling is not the answer, it only delays the inevitable. Its a short sighted solution that lowers the cost of exploration for oil companies and does nothing for the country long term.

Derek of FL 4:20PM September 17, 2008

The title of this article along with its content reports a very misleading picture when it comes to HR 6899.
In reviewing six other sources on this bill, the following components are missing from this article:
1. The measure would permanently ban leasing up to 50 miles offshore.
2. Allow leasing from 50 to 100 miles offshore only when a coastal state requests it.
3. Omits revenue shares for coastal states.
4. Neighboring states have veto power over a state's decision to allow offshore exploration within the 50-100 mile range.
5. More than $36 billion of new taxes on the oil and gas industry.
You will notice that the five missing components are directly tied to offshore drilling. Mr. Garber only dedicated his opening sentence to offshore drilling.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the very reason why the democrats pushed this energy bill through at the eleventh hour was to address the overwhelming public pressure to open up offshore drilling NOT whether we were going to extend tax credits to wind and solar. They had to present something to the public since offshore drilling was the single biggest issue that was sinking them in the polls--welcome the Pelosi "flop."
However, what was presented was purely a political ploy, because they knew there was no way the bill would be passed into law. This would enable them to pass the buck to the republicans claiming interference. Thanks for putting the needs of the democratic party ahead of the American people.
For those studying economics, this would be a perfect case study in applying economic theory and free market forces to HR 6899. Would HR 6899 generate new production of oil off the shores of the United States? I'll take the "A" over any political affiliation, my answer NO!

Greg Chacon of CO 4:13PM September 17, 2008

I think the first place we should drill is in Crawford Texas, that's about as off shore as we can get at this time. Colorado next and then Alasks,OPPS, we drill there already but we don't send it to the lower 48, we send it to Asia, A more profitable market. Maybe if we just go back to horses and wagons, we would have less BS from politicians and more HS to shovel, which sboveling is an honorable trade, did I mention HS is really good for roses!

bill of TX 4:01PM September 17, 2008

The GOP continues it's head-in-sand approach to governing.
They're always demeaning Pres Carter, but he was right.
Had this country followed Carter's lead, on Energy, we wouldn't be in this mess now... and probably never would've invaded Iraq.
The FACT is that drilling will not lower prices, in the near term.
The FACT is that any oil that will be extracted, will most likely go into the World Market... and the amount of oil, is negligible, in terms of domestic or world demand.
And however long we keep focusing on oil, only puts off the reality that we have to get off oil, and move into the future.
Thus, the Dem approach is the intelligent way to go. Offering compromise to placate the dinosaur drillers, while the rest of us move forward, and make green energy, a force to drive our new economy.
It's no wonder that the GOP campaigns are always fear-based, and backward thinking, since their base is so scared of everything, especially progress.

jon of NY 4:00PM September 17, 2008

What's the Republicans' point, anyway?
They seem to be standing only for more profits to BIG OIL, and not attention to building up clean-tech industries of the future.
Only solar power offers enough energy to replace gasoline, coal and natural gas; and electric can ONLY replace gasoline if cars and trains run on electric plug-in power.
Save the oil for applications such as planes and long-distance travel by car, if there's anybody interested in that any more.
Easy to eliminate overseas oil imports: rooftop solar power and plug-in Electric cars. But the stupid Republicans are pretending there is no crisis, and continuing to play politics.

Doug Korthof of CA 3:58PM September 17, 2008

Should energy be eguitable? Isn't energy considered a individual right. Does our constitution consider energy a fair play endeaver or are we giving it to a few to sell to the many? Congress should debate energy for the people by the people not by a few chosen to lead us astray|

bob alb ee of WA 3:54PM September 17, 2008

The Oil companies are having a difficult year, let's have the republican party find out what they want, and then we can give it all to them. Let's not add any of that new energy crap (wind and solar), we can just keep talking about it for a while longer. And if there is a big oil spill that wrecks our beaches, let's sign a deal that says the government will clean it up, because the oil companies are just trying to help us in our time of need and shouldn't be held responsible.
I'm sick and tired of those environmentalist. They have been complaining for years and years about pollution, talk about crying wolf. It's much easier to ignore the data and just believe whatever we want to believe.
Besides it's fun to be a mindless idiot who ignores the facts and says whatever Fox news tells me to say. Drill baby, Drill !!!!

Joe of MN 3:49PM September 17, 2008

U dont have to be a rocket scientist to realize 50 miles off shore is a no profit well. Liberal communist politicions want us to believe they did great passing such legislation. A bunch of crap.. jim

Jim Little of TX 3:42PM September 17, 2008

I was only 1 or 2 at the time, but, as I understand it, we got fair warning of this oil shortage in the 70's.
We (or really YOU, to everyone that screwed up prior to my generation) have had THIRTY YEARS to develop alternative forms of energy. Of course there were so many reasons why it "couldn't" be done. "Too expensive" "The technology isn't there" "blah blah blah".
So maybe it's time to stop acting like a bunch of babies and deal with the higher prices. You've had plenty of time to drive around your pickups and SUV's and land yachts. The honeymoon is over. Suck it up and shut up!

Mike of FL 3:19PM September 17, 2008