[The American Lion]

McCain Seeks to End Offshore Drilling Ban

By Michael D. Shear and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 17, 2008; A01

Sen. John McCain called yesterday for an end to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, offering an aggressive response to high gasoline prices and immediately drawing the ire of environmental groups that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has courted for months.

The move is aimed at easing voter anger over rising energy prices by freeing states to open vast stretches of the country's coastline to oil exploration. In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly 80 percent said soaring prices at the pump are causing them financial hardship, the highest in surveys this decade.

"We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil," McCain told reporters yesterday. In a speech today, he plans to add that "we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions."

McCain's announcement is a reversal of the position he took in his 2000 presidential campaign and a break with environmental activists, even as he attempts to win the support of independents and moderate Democrats. Since becoming the presumptive GOP nominee in March, McCain has presented himself as a friend of the environment by touting his plans to combat global warming and his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in the Everglades.

Representatives of several environmental groups criticized him for backing an idea they said would endanger the nation's most environmentally sensitive waters.

"It's disappointing that Senator McCain is clinging to the failed energy policies of the past," said Tiernan Sittenfeld, legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters.

Sierra Club political director Cathy Duvall said McCain "is using the environment as a way to portray himself as being different from George Bush. But the reality is that he isn't." The group began running radio commercials yesterday that criticize McCain's environmental record in the battleground state of Ohio.

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama joined the criticism, calling the idea of lifting the ban the wrong answer to out-of-control energy prices. "John McCain's plan to simply drill our way out of our energy crisis is the same misguided approach backed by President Bush that has failed our families for too long and only serves to benefit the big oil companies," Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan said.

Energy policy -- led by the spike in gas prices -- is now a top-tier issue in the campaign, forcing both candidates to shift their attention from other domestic issues and foreign affairs. Spot prices for a barrel of crude oil briefly hit an all-time high yesterday, flirting with $140 a barrel before settling back to a bit less than $134.

In the Post-ABC poll, conducted Thursday through Sunday, about half of those surveyed called high gas prices a serious burden, while the issue emerged for the first time during the campaign as a top concern for voters. Obama held double-digit leads over McCain as the candidate more trusted to deal with gasoline prices and energy policy.

While both candidates have spoken about the need to shift to cleaner energy sources, they have proposed different ways to do so.

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.

"Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk," he will say in the speech, according to excerpts the campaign provided yesterday.

Obama backs using money raised through an auction of greenhouse-gas emissions credits to bolster research and development projects, while imposing requirements on how much renewable energy public utilities would have to buy.

Yesterday in the down-at-the-heels manufacturing city of Flint, Mich., Obama said that a new energy policy must be part of government efforts to revive the economy.

"Our dependence on foreign oil strains family budgets and it saps our economy. Oil money pays for the bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut, and the bombast of dictators from Caracas to Tehran," Obama said. "Our nation will not be secure unless we take that leverage away, and our planet will not be safe unless we move decisively toward a clean energy future."

McCain's call for an end to the coastal oil drilling ban is at odds with his oft-stated view that drilling should remain off-limits in sensitive areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Asked by reporters about those places, McCain said yesterday that he still thinks the refuge is a "pristine" area and opposes drilling there.

The senator's push to end the ban is sure to annoy two key Republican allies -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist -- both of whom oppose drilling off their states' coastlines.

Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear noted the governor's overall support for McCain's candidacy but said: "There are things that he and the senator will agree on, and things they won't agree on." Crist said in a statement: "It has become increasingly clear that we must be pragmatic in protecting both our beaches and our economy. We look forward to the dialogue as we move forward to protect both our environment and our country's economic interests."

Congress created a moratorium on new drilling off the coast in 1981, and every president since then has extended it.

While McCain has traditionally sided with environmentalists on climate change, he has a mixed voting record on oil drilling and support for renewable energy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 31_pf.html

Good, we need to get off this silly idea that getting rid of oil ASAP will be a good thing. Drilling in our own waters will help us get rid of Arab dependence. Democrats have never found a plan that will help us end our oil dependence problem. Obama plan, tax the oil producers, will solve our problem. That idea will not work.

[Infidelis]

Do you REALLY think there is enough oil out in our ocean to rid us of independence? If so, for how long?

Another particularly damaging and short-sighted proposal from McCain [insert joke about age/eye sight here.].

[Grognonours]

Do you REALLY think there is enough oil out in our ocean to rid us of independence?

Well, the US uses 20 million barrels a day, so there's no one solution to this. 65% of our oil is imported. If we drill both coasts and more of the gulf, we can bring in enough oil to offset what we import. However, I think most of that oil will go to export which won't help our situation, but if it's used here we can pretty much run on zero imported oil.

[Dave]

How is drilling for oil short-sighted?

I hate how econazis always claim WELL IT'S NOT ENOUGH OIL TO BECOME ENERGY INDEPENDENT as if that's some kind of reason to not drill for oil. By that metric we might as well shut down ALL domestic oil production. I think that is the agenda of econazis, since they despise industrial civilization.

I actually think there is enough oil around here to become energy independent, and even if there isn't, we'll certainly be importing a lot less, generating good paying jobs, and keeping a lot more money at home.

And if we really do want energy independence and the oil isn't enough, we can mine oil shale, convert coal to oil, and cut our consumption of oil.

[QatzelOk]

I think that is the agenda of econazis, since they despise industrial civilization.

Dave, the real Nazis were more like you: they believed that industry was more important than anything else.

[Dave]

Anyone with that belief never would've oppressed the highly creative and talented jews.

[QatzelOk]

A lot of those talented Jews were communists.

And a lot of wealthy industrialist Jews supported Hitler, or at least supported his notion of one people, one state, one leader.

[Erebus]

This won't be bad for him.

[Nets]

I think that is the agenda of econazis, since they despise industrial civilization.

And a lot of wealthy industrialist Jews supported Hitler

Oh here we go again.

I can't tell which of you two wins the prize for the least knowledge of what Nazi actually means.

[Dave]

I know what nazi means and I realize it isn't applicable to environmentalists, I simply use it as such in a pejorative sense. It's somewhat fitting in that environmentalists want to destroy us all.

[stalker]

Drilling for oil in the US is short-sighted. Those resources are going to become much more valuable during the course of this century, and should be preserved for use in a national emergency (e.g. if imports cease).

And why do we need industrial civilization anyway? Is having a big car really that important?

[Dave]

Ending oil drilling would force us to cough up the change to pay for another 7 million barrels a day of oil, not to mention investing in the port infrastructure to handle the oil imports.

In light of our negative household savings rate, rapidly diminishing manufacturing capacity, and reckless policies, finding the money to pay for this seems highly unlikely.

There may be 113 billion barrels of crude oil off the coast of Florida, where drilling is currently banned. The Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, may have 300 billion barrels of oil.

And in any case, we've got more than just crude oil we can tap. We have the world's largest deposits of oil shale and coal, both of which can be turned into crude oil.

The current price of oil is extremely high, and we need to increase production and cut consumption.

And why do we need industrial civilization? Is that a joke?

[stalker]

In light of our negative household savings rate, rapidly diminishing manufacturing capacity, and reckless policies, finding the money to pay for this seems highly unlikely.

I agree with the worry over the double deficit, but the idea the US is losing manufacturing capacity is a myth.



The automative industry isn't everything

And in any case, we've got more than just crude oil we can tap. We have the world's largest deposits of oil shale and coal, both of which can be turned into crude oil.

Their EROEI is low and they're very dirty.

And why do we need industrial civilization? Is that a joke?

No, I'm quite serious.

I've written about it in the Modernity thread in Opinion.

[Dave]

I agree with the worry over the double deficit, but the idea the US is losing manufacturing capacity is a myth.



The automative industry isn't everything

Needlessly confusing graph, and it's not a myth. Industrial production is able to show continuing growth for two reasons.
1) Statistics have not kept pace with new trade patterns
2) Hedonic (or geometric) indexing for productivity measurement adopted in 1995.

As to number one, manufacturing output is only measured in terms of final value. While this is obviously appropriate, this means that imported components replacing domestically sourced ones do not show up as lost manufacturing capacity.

For instance, the furniture industry is currently show as having strong growth due to this, even though it is actually being destroyed. Economist Michael Mandel wrote a feature article in BusinessWeek about this last year titled "Phantom GDP", and estimated that $120 billion of reported manufacturing was actually false. Given Mandel's pro-globalization bias, the figure is probably higher.

As to the second point, in 1995 the BLS began measuring "quality" in the consumer price index, as well as in productivity measurements. This was done without revising older data series. The result: productivity growth suddenly skyrocketed according to the data, inflation dropped, and manufacturing output showed big growth!

It's very difficult to get an accurate picture of what's going on in manufacturing any more in the US, but for those us involved in manufacturing it's disturbing. 40,000 factories have closed in the past ten years. We have lost half our machine tool industry. 50% of our integrated steel mill production is gone (about half the slack has been picked up by minimills though). Our entire auto parts industry is in serious crisis, and of course we know what's going on with our auto manufacturers. The fundamental skills needed for manufacturing may be disappearing as well. There are only 2,000 apprentices in machining in the entire United States today, and a similar number of tool-and-die apprentices.

Their EROEI is low and they're very dirty.

EROEI of oil shale is 20%, and could be improved. It hardly has to be dirty, but yes with current practices it is.

Coal-to-liquid is not dirty at all, and is in fact cleaner. I don't actually know what the EROEI is, but obviously it works since it has a good historical record.

[stalker]

Interesting stuff on manufacturing you've got there. I concede, you obviously know more about it.

I don't actually know what the EROEI is, but obviously it works since it has a good historical record.

Obviously it does work, but where has it worked?

The two biggest examples that come to mind are Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa.

The former constantly suffering from lack of access to oil for its war, the latter hit by sanctions.

[Dave]

Naturally. The profitable production cost of coal based synfuels from the Fischer-Tropsch process is about $35, which explains why it was not at all pursued outside of Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. During the 70s energy crisis two coal-to-liquids plants were constructed in West Germany, but they were shut down in the wake of the 80s oil glut.

While oil may be overvalued in the short term, in the long term it is not, and I have difficulty seeing oil ever falling below $35 a barrel again. As such, it seems to me that synthetic crude oil from coal is a great plan now, although, again, I don't know what the EROEI is.

Theoretically oil and gas sources with a negative EROEI could be acceptable if the energy used to create that oil and gas is not subject to depletion, simply because the primary uses for oil and gas are transportation and feedstock for petrochemicals.

[Gletkin]

Offshore drilling (and drilling in Alaska too for that matter) would be a lesser evil than getting involved in some of the most chaotic regions overseas to ensure our access to foreign oil.

Unfortunately, it wouldn't encourage corporations to find alternative renewable energy sources any quicker.

[The American Lion]

Unfortunately, it wouldn't encourage corporations to find alternative renewable energy sources any quicker.

Well you don't think Car companies and energy companies are going to depend on just gasoline forever. They know that customer's want less energy. That's why car developers are creating hybrids or making cars that have different sources of power. Also most Americans should support McCain idea of building more nuclear power plants. They are much cleaner and safer for all.

[Infidelis]

How is drilling for oil short-sighted?

I hate how econazis always claim WELL IT'S NOT ENOUGH OIL TO BECOME ENERGY INDEPENDENT as if that's some kind of reason to not drill for oil. By that metric we might as well shut down ALL domestic oil production. I think that is the agenda of econazis, since they despise industrial civilization.

I actually think there is enough oil around here to become energy independent, and even if there isn't, we'll certainly be importing a lot less, generating good paying jobs, and keeping a lot more money at home.

And if we really do want energy independence and the oil isn't enough, we can mine oil shale, convert coal to oil, and cut our consumption of oil.

Don't tell me you think there is enough oil to be dependent or that you think there is enough to import a lot less, use facts. Speculating isn't something we should be doing in any way with oil and energy.

It's short sighted in that it's a band-aid that will wear off quickly. What happens when we tap out our resources here, or if there isn't enough resources here to make a dent in our reliance to the Saudis?

[Dave]

If there's "not enough oil to make a dent", then we've just generated some income and jobs in our own country. If it's offshore, it will also aid our fisheries since oil rigs form massive reefs.

It's difficult to know just how much there is, all I know is that there is an estimated 113 billion barrels off Florida and an estimated 300 billion off the north coast of Alaska, and we're not going to find out for sure until we start exploring.

If we really want energy independence, we have the world's largest coal reserves, something which can be converted to crude oil. Synthetic crude made from coal also has the environmental benefit of having no sulphur or heavy metal.