Offshore Drilling Ban to be Lifted by Bush

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Off shore drilling will likely reduce pollution in the ocean. Oil seepage, some two thirds of all ocean oil pollution, is caused by pressure which can be released by drilling.

I've said before, I have no issue with off shore drilling using existing platforms and infrastructure that are retrofitted and inspected to be safe at today's standards.

My issue is with creating new structures, new infrastructure in the ocean and drilling in AK.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

I've said before, I have no issue with off shore drilling using existing platforms and infrastructure that are retrofitted and inspected to be safe at today's standards.

My issue is with creating new structures, new infrastructure in the ocean and drilling in AK.

Yeah, but to reduce seepage one must drill where pressure has built up. That may require new infrastructure.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Any thoughts on this potential compromise, as put forth by the "gang of ten"?

Personally, I don't love it, but I think it is a reasonable compromise, that might actually start getting something done.


The major components of the proposal include:

- Expanding drilling opportunities off the East coast and Gulf of Mexico, which pleases Republicans

- Keeping a ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, a concession to Democrats

- Repealing a tax break for oil companies that Democrats have long called for

- Putting billions toward producing more alternative-fuel vehicles, in part paid for by the oil and gas industry

It will be interesting to see which way each candidate votes on it. Kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Any thoughts on this potential compromise, as put forth by the "gang of ten"?

Uh oh. I'm scared now, isn't this proposal from the Gang of Ten exactly what Paris Hilton advocates here? Maybe we should elect her.

[Alex]

If I were the Democrats I'd vote for it and then next year when they have the White House anyway put the off shore ban back.

[scaeagles]

I guess I'd want to first know how extensive the increases in drilling would be on the limited, though expanded, chances for drilling and I wonder who determines where they are allowed to drill.

And after looking at Alex's post, there would certainly need to be some assurances in place. Pelosi is already playing behind the scenes telling vulnerable dems it's OK to vote for drilling to protect the seat (tell 'em what they want to hear even though the party has no intention of allowing it - gotta love Pelosi!) while not allowing debate on the floor.

[Alex]

scaeagles, I don't have the energy tonight to look into that claim. But every single quick source I find traces back to a single Op Ed in a newspaper that references a single press release from 1999 for the idea that drilling reduces seepage.

Tomorrow maybe I'll have the energy but since you brought it up would you have any interest into looking at whether this idea has any more support than the last Drudge link that took the conservative blogosphere by storm?

[scaeagles]

I actually read it in an article from the Heritage Foundation, if I recall.

[scaeagles]

OK - here's the only thing I can find - can't seem to find what I thought I'd read from the Heritage Foundation, but this is published on the UCSB website, which references and article from Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans, but I can't seem to locate that article.

From UCSB

Since that is pretty much the only thing that I find referenced repeatedly, I assume that's what you were referring to, Alex?

[Alex]

Searching their site for seepage doesn't find any good candidate but if you remember where you read I'll read it.

It sounds a bit fantastical but it could be true. That said, it could also be true that it is better to have a lot of seepage where it happens naturally than a little spillage where it doesn't, what with ecosystems adapting and all.