Today, the House of Representatives, in committee voted to hold onto the ban on oil drilling within the 50- 200 mile limit. Democrats voted no. Republicans voted yes.
A Pennsylvania Congressman told Jim Cramer of Mad Money, that the cost of natural gas for Dow Chemical to run there plants in the US has risen from 32 million dollars per year, to 32 million dollars per qtr. They are now 65 percent of operations are overseas, where the cost of natural gas is cheaper. The US is paying the highest price for natural gas. Other companies will follow suit and move operations off shore to control the cost of natural gas.

Meanwhile they talk about weaning the US off of foreign oil.
Meanwhile the US imports 67% of the oil used here.
Meanwhile Americans are driving to Mexico for gas under 3.00 per gallon, which keeps demand artificially high.
Mexico, China and other countries are subsidizing the true cost of gasoline.
(note to those who want subsidized health care) The cost is shifted somewhere else.
Mexico is our #2 source of oil. Canada #1 Venezuela # 3 (who is arguing with Exxon)
Meanwhile Cuba is drilling 45 miles off the coast of florida.
Canada is drilling in Lake Erie.
Its only going to get worse. Figures are each amercian used 25 barrels of oil per year. China residents and India use about 2 barrels of oil per year.
The market is betting on more expensive natural gas the rest of this year and next.
Wind, solar etc make up 1% of the energy needs. Govt wants to subsidize wind power and send you the bill.

You dont have to join anything to write to your congressman or woman.

Its your paycheck against the environmental lobby. American companies will be drilling in the ocean, in front of a foreign nation and they wont own the oil.

Your on the menu. Environmental groups are in control of some politicians.

Actually Bush cut the size of the area for leases in Florida because his brother was up for re election.

http://www.factcheck.org/environmental_groups_ad_distorts_bushs_record_on.html
The Bush administration in 2001 backed off a proposal to allow drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in an area that came as close as 16 miles to beaches in Florida's panhandle. What the Bush administration approved instead keeps drilling at least 100 miles from the coast. But an ad airing in Florida by the League of Conservation Voters gives a different -- and misleading -- impression.
This misleading ad may be a payback for an attack last month by Bush's brother Jeb, who falsely claimed Kerry favors drilling off the Florida coast.

Analysis
Bush's record on Florida offshore drilling is summed up in this Interior Department map: Lease Sale 181 Area
Source: Minerals Management Service, US Dept. of Interior

The area outlined in pink is Lease Sale 181 Area -- a tract of 5.9 million acres first proposed for oil and gas leases in 1997 during the Clinton administration with the actual leasing to begin in December 2001. When Bush took office his Interior Secretary Gail Norton expressed support for going ahead with the sale. But because the extreme northeastern tip of the area reaches to within 16 miles off the coast at a point west of Pensacola, the President's brother Jeb, who was up for re-election as Florida's governor, protested. So the administration retreated, and approved only the smaller area shaded in green. It comes no closer than 100 miles from the Florida coast and, at less than 1.5 million acres, is about one-quarter the size of the original tract.

Yeah, the "environmental lobby" is in complete control of this country. I just hope big oil and the multi-national corporations can raise enough money to fight them off!

The enviro lobby does hold considerable control over the country. They dont do it so much through the lobby of politicians(they do this too though) but they use the courts to file lawsuits, block this or that and hold up anything they dont like. All they have to do is file in San Fran and it will be in the system for years before people loose interest and give up.
Stever,
factcheck.org is a relatively good org but if you think that Kathleen Jamieson and Brooks Jackson dont have political leanings you are drinking far more "kool-aid" than you accuse others of. They tell the facts as best as they can find them but if you read there book you will see where their pollitics lie. They take on more conservatives and lean their reporting. As do most of these groups. It is all about what they decide to pay attention to and what they "dont have time to check out".

Docspud,

You are correct that environmental groups attempt to use the courts... mainly because they have very few other effective options.

This seems to be another constant Dem/Repub debate. Then it is "activist judges" and "trial lawyers" wanting to ruin the country. Of course lawyers are making money but many of the lawsuits are indeed necessary. What should be done when the EPA (the agency RESPONSIBLE) for public health and environmental regulations fails to fulfill their mission? What about the WDFW failing to protect fish or protect stocks when federally mandated to do so? The only thing you CAN do is sue them. Do you actually think that companies would do a good job of things like policing their own emissions? The courts are setup to establish a third party that can decide these things.

Repubs tend to blame the "trial lawers" for bringing the case and the "activist judges" for deciding it against business. I guess if you are lookign to take a side, you can either blame the people filing the suit or those that made it necessary to file.

Yeah pursuing clean water, clean air, protecting National parks, protecting fish and rivers and the sound and oceans and trying to ensure the taxpayer doesn't end up footing the bill on yet another superfund cleanup and all of that crap is just criminal. Why they ought to hang those do gooders who get in the way of fat cats lining their sweaty palms with all of that cash. The nerve.

I am an equal oppor blamer Kaiser. They all suck. But things in my oppinion should be voted on not rammed down our throats by unelected "officials". I agree completely that suits are some times needed to stop bad policy when no one has stepped up like they should and when this started years ago it was probably a good thing but........As with all good things, they are abused. It is terrible how teh courts have hijacked the job of the elected officials. They are there to follow teh constit not rewrite it. I am a believer in the consitit by the way. i do not think it should evolve but I like the arguement that it should(though wrong).
"Laws" should be voted on unless they are "rights" which are set out in the bill of rights. They are pretty clear in there as to what we get as rights. Interpret laws...dont make laws, that should be their job though some dont think so.

Stlhead,
I agree again that they do some good things but these are still things that should be done by our elected officials. If the elected officials dont do it then they should be voted out and others in. The "do gooders" often go way overboard and abuse the system as bad as the "fat cats" do. Lastly, the tax payer always foots the bill. Any large lawsuit verdict gets past right on to higher prices we pay. The only people who benefit are those on the winning end of the suit.......not the public. They use up the court time that we pay for and whatever they get comes out of the publics pockets(directly often but if not, then indirectly).

Good post stever, I did forget about that. I was thinking in the moment, but would have to put him on the list. Gee the oil buddies must be mad.

Stlhd, you make a good point. Why the sarcasm? Trial lawyers have gone overboard. Thats what Tort law is all about. We dont sue utensil mfg for making people fat. yet.

I'm not sure that the "the public" doesn't win in some of these suits even IF costs get passed on. The fact that a large company would lose a lawsuit by definition makes them liable.

Take the Ford Explorer rollover issue. I could give a shiat because I don't own a Ford. But if your family was killed in a rollover incident that Ford could have predicted but covered up, wouldn't you feel like they were liable? Or what about tobacco companies saying they have no data that would indicate tobacco is addictive? Or is that just liberal trial lawyers acting up again? Do you see my point? I realize that people can go over the top with lawsuits but I'd say a lot of that is spin and using the exception to the rule to make a point.

I guess people just have a lot more faith in the government and the private sector than I do. There is a book called "What's wrong with Kansas" that many would benefit from reading.

By the time elected officials fail and are replaced the permanent damage would already be done. Exactly the type of system those whom rape and pillage the environment want.

Until this admin the judicial branch was a third and equal branch of the govt. The judicial branch interprets laws and even the constitution. Congress passes laws and then the courts, via lawsuits, interpret them. The way it's always been.

I'd like to see all of those who bash trial lawyers and are caught with their hand in the cookie jar refuse to hire a defense attorney and instead defend themselves.

I hate to have to interject some facts into this discussion...but here goes.

The Republicans will tell you that the Democrats and the enviro lobby are responsible for a lack of new oil drilling leases.

Sounds good to the right wing whack jobs, especially those who get their "news" from Rush or from FoxNews, but the actual fact is that the last 10,000 approved oil drilling leases HAVE NOT BEEN DRILLED.

Why?

Because the oil companies are sitting on them to keep the supply lower.

But we don't have enough refineries to refine more oil, anyway, and that's the fault of the Democrats and enviros, too!

Really?

Well...no. There has been a grand total of ONE application made for a new refinery in the past several years...and, it was APPROVED.

Why haven't there been more applications to build more refineries so that we can refine more oil domestically? Because the oil companies want to keep the supply down.

How many refineries were there ten years ago? How many are there now?

Yeah...look it up...the oil companies have voluntarily closed refineries...lots of them.

Why? Must be the Democrats an the enviros again, right?

Yeah...it was the oil companies...again.

For those of you who get your news from Rush Limbaugh, and consider hearing it the next day on FoxNews to be "research into the facts", then you are idiots. You get the high oil prices you deserve.

You are being screwed by the oil companies...period.

They own thousands of drilling permits that THEY ARE NOT USING.

They have not applied for ANY NEW REFINERIES...except for one, which was APPROVED.

They have voluntarily closed dozens of their refineries here in the States...VOLUNTARILY.

The next time you have to pay $4.50 a gallon for gas, thank Exxon-Mobile, Shell, British Petroleum, and their handpicked cronies in the Bush Administration.

Don't believe what I've said? Fine...look it up.

As with most everything, it's public record, and you don't hear the truth on Fox or from Rush.

Fish on...

Todd

Gee Todd, way to be a spoil sport.

But yeah, it always seems to come back to "When Corporations Rule Government."

Sg

If you own 15 stocks and two mutual funds, Fox and Rush are a complete waste of time. The oil companies dont spend much time on wallstreet, so if they are fooling wallstreet and cnbc, then Im going down with them. Your better off with financial reports. Rush wont make you rich. IF the oil companies are pulling one over on congress, we need a new congress.


Ok democrats are perfect. I dont get paid for this info, I no longer care.
I wont change the election. Oh ya Todd is always right. alwasys.

I love when the left wing loons call the right wingers nut jobs. Kind of like Carvelle telling Gingrich he not centrist enough. Makes for fun politics.

Wow I didn't now a presidental canidate of the other party had so much power. Now it's all Al's fault. Just imagine how much higher gas would be if a non oil man was the president for the last seven years. Just think by not being elected Al Gore has singlehandedly brought this upon us.
SHAME ON YOU AL GORE. Oh yea he is alsoresponsible for global warming and the Lindberg kidnapping.

Aunty,

Are you serious? You think that because Al Gore knows that high prices will reduce consumption that he has caused prices to be high?

Really?

How the hell did he pull that off?

Any of you RWWJ's checked my facts yet? The ones about the ten thousand UNUSED drilling permits for drilling here in the USA? The one about ONE SINGLE APPLICATION being made for a refinery, when refinery space is what they keep telling us is the problem?

Probably not...call in and ask Rush about it this morning.

Fish on...

Todd

http://www.dnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080612/NEWS01/80612033/1002

Gordon: Oil companies should use drilling permits or lose them


WASHINGTON – In an effort to provide relief to consumers struggling to cope with high gas prices, U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon is urging Congress to require oil companies to use their drilling permits or lose them.

Gordon cites a report from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources that says the federal government has issued thousands of leases that oil and gas companies are not using to drill on public land. According to the report, it is estimated from today’s production rates that the 68 million acres of federal land that is leased but not drilled could nearly double total U.S. oil production and could increase gas production by more than 50 percent.

“If companies used the permits they are holding and increased domestic production, the United States could cut oil imports by one-third,” said Gordon. “Congress needs to send a message to oil companies and tell them they can’t just stockpile leases to artificially inflate oil prices. We need legislation that will force companies to use their drilling permits or lose their leases and let someone else drill on that land.”

Gordon said he is hopeful that legislation will be introduced in the coming weeks to require the “use it or lose it” stipulation on drilling permits

Myths and Facts about Oil Refineries in the US

The Bush administration and some members of Congress blame environmental rules for causing strains on refining capacity, prompting shortages and driving up prices. But in reality, it is uncompetitive actions by a handful of companies with large control over our nation’s gas markets that is directly causing these high prices.

Myth 1: Oil refineries are not being built in the U.S. because environmental regulations, particularly the Clean Air Act, are so bureaucratic and burdensome that refiners cannot get permits.

Fact: Environmental regulations are not preventing new refineries from being built in the U.S. From 1975 to 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received only one permit request for a new refinery. And in March, EPA approved Arizona Clean Fuels’ application for an air permit for a proposed refinery in Arizona. In addition, oil companies are regularly applying for – and receiving – permits to modify and expand their existing refineries.[1]

Myth 2: The U.S. oil refinery market is competitive.

Fact: Actually, industry consolidation is limiting competition in oil refining sector. The largest five oil refiners in the United States (ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, BP, Valero and Royal Dutch Shell) now control over half (56.3%) of domestic oil refinery capacity; the top ten refiners control 83%. Only ten years ago, these top five oil companies only controlled about one-third (34.5%) of domestic refinery capacity; the top ten controlled 55.6%. This dramatic increase in the control of just the top five companies makes it easier for oil companies to manipulate gasoline supplies by intentionally withholding supplies in order to drive up prices. Indeed, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded in March 2001 that oil companies had intentionally withheld supplies of gasoline from the market as a tactic to drive up prices—all as a “profit-maximizing strategy.” A May 2004 U.S. Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) report also found that mergers in the oil industry directly led to higher prices—and this report did not even include the large mergers after the year 2000, such as ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips. Yet, just one week after Hurricane Katrina, the FTC approved yet another merger of refinery giants—Valero Energy and Premcor—giving Valero 13% of the national market share. These actions, while costing consumers billions of dollars in overcharges, have not been challenged by the U.S. government.

Myth 3: The United States has maxed out its oil refining capability.

Fact: Oil companies have exploited their strong market position to intentionally restrict refining capacity by driving smaller, independent refiners out of business. A congressional investigation uncovered internal memos written by the major oil companies operating in the U.S. discussing their successful strategies to maximize profits by forcing independent refineries out of business, resulting in tighter refinery capacity. From 1995-2002, 97% of the more than 920,000 barrels of oil per day of capacity that have been shut down were owned and operated by smaller, independent refiners. Were this capacity to be in operation today, refiners could use it to better meet today’s reformulated gasoline blend needs.

Profit margins for oil refiners have been at record highs. In 1999, for every gallon of gasoline refined from crude oil, U.S. oil refiners made a profit of 22.8 cents. By 2004, the profits jumped 80% to 40.8 cents per gallon of gasoline refined. Between 2001 and mid-2005, the combined profits for the biggest five refiners was $228 billion.

Gutting environmental laws for oil refinery siting will not solve the high gas prices.

So what should be done?

Improve regulations over the over-concentrated oil industry
The most effective way to protect consumers is to restore competitive markets. Congress should limit the financial incentives oil companies have to keep gasoline supplies artificially tight by mandating minimum storage of gasoline, reevaluating recent mergers, investigating anticompetitive practices, and re-regulating oil trading.

Adopt tougher fuel economy standards
In 2004, the EPA found that the average fuel economy of 2004 vehicles is 20.8 miles per gallon (mpg), compared to 22.1 mpg in 1987—a six percent decline. This decline is attributable to the fact that fuel economy standards have not been meaningfully increased since the 1980s, while sales of fuel inefficient SUVs and pickups have exploded: in 1987, 28% of new vehicles sold were light trucks, compared to 48% in 2004. Billions of gallons of oil could be saved if significant fuel economy increases were mandated. Improving fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles from 27.5 to 40 mpg, and for light trucks (including SUVs and vans) from 20.7 to 27.5 mpg by 2015 would reduce our gasoline consumption by one-third. Dramatic reductions in consumption will not only reduce strain on America’s refinery output, but also on Americans’ pocketbooks.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Committee on Government Reform Hearing, “Potential Energy Crisis in the Winter of 2000” 106th Congress, (Sept. 20-21, 2000). http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/..._house_hearings

http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Release/20080529.cfm

More than 44 Million Acres under Lease for Oil and Gas in U.S.
New analyses shows unprecedented drilling boom, tremendous surplus of undrilled leases, and errors in recent BLM oil and gas assessment

WASHINGTON (May 29, 2008) – More than 44 million acres of public lands are leased for oil and gas development, according to a new Wilderness Society analysis of Interior Department data. The analysis points to an explosion of drilling on federal lands, with 7,124 drilling permits (APDs) issued in 2007, a new record for the Bush Administration. Nationwide, the leasing is outstripping the oil and gas industry’s capacity to drill, as industry is drilling on only a quarter of the leases they hold. [View the detailed analysis]

“We are seeing gas drilling on public lands at a magnitude greater than anything we’ve experienced, and it threatens to forever damage many of our most treasured Western places if not done carefully,” said Dave Alberswerth of The Wilderness Society. “Oil and gas development is a legitimate and important use of our public lands, but it is equally important to have oil and gas program that is balanced with other uses of those lands, such as protecting fish and wildlife, cultural values, and the air we breathe and the water we drink.”

Summary: Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs)
Approved by BLM, 2001-2007

Colorado: 2,909
Montana: 843
New Mexico: 7,606
Utah: 2,955
Wyoming: 18,613
Rocky Mtns: 32,926
Nation-wide: 35,106

The vast acreage under lease and huge increase in drilling permits contradicts the Interior Department’s assertions that it has inadequate access to federal lands. On May 21, 2008, the Bureau of Land Management released “EPCA III,” its latest inventory of oil and gas resources on more than 279 million acres of federal land. In the report, BLM emphasized the amount of oil and gas resources off limit to development. But another Wilderness Society analysis shows that the report manipulated data and was rife with errors.

“As they did with the 2006 version of this report, the Bush administration and BLM again manipulated data to reach a predetermined conclusion that supports the oil and gas industry’s desire to open more public lands to drilling,” said Nada Culver of The Wilderness Society’s BLM Action Center. “This time, however, they have gone through even greater gyrations in an attempt to create data that supports their position, including defining as ‘impediments’ such basic values as keeping our water and air clean, ensuring wildlife can survive, and protecting treasured wild lands.”

The Wilderness Society’s analysis shows that report categorizes as “inaccessible” lands that the BLM knows are available for leasing, including lands undergoing resource management plans and lands covered by “no surface occupancy” (NSO) stipulations, which can be accessed via directional drilling techniques. The report lists all of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska’s Northeast Planning Area in the “no leasing” category, even though the area has already seen two lease sales, with a third scheduled for October. The report lists existing laws to protect clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat as “impediments,” and includes in its inventory National Parks, National Monuments, Wilderness areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, National Conservation Areas, such as Glacier National Park, the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument and the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. [View the detailed analysis]

“The Bush Administration keeps telling the American people that the answer to high energy prices is more drilling on federal public lands, with fewer measures to protect the environment,” said Eleanor Huffines, director of the Wilderness Society’s Alaska office. “But recently released U.S. Energy Information Administration data indicates that even if commercial quantities of oil were discovered in the Arctic Refuge, the effect at the gas pump would be just a few pennies per gallon at peak production. And the increased drilling and leasing of public lands elsewhere by the Bush Administration has not decreased energy prices.”

A third Wilderness Society analysis shows that the BLM continues to grant “exceptions” from lease terms meant to protect natural resources, and is aggressively using five new “categorical exclusions” created by Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to exempt permits to drill from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. [View the chart of categorical exclusions]

“The BLM has issued guidance to require aggressive use of these loopholes and is even preventing field offices from considering whether there may still be significant damage to the environment requiring review or additional protection measures,” said Culver. “What this means on the ground is that at a place like Utah’s Nine Mile Canyon, renowned for its spectacular pictographs and wilderness qualities, BLM’s guidance essentially directs field offices to use these loopholes even if they believe there could be significant damage to natural and cultural resources.”

A final new analysis by The Wilderness Society provides more evidence of the administration’s rush to lease by showing that selected Resource Management Plans in CO, WY, UT, NM, and MT would open more than 43 million acres to oil and gas development.

The Wilderness Society analyses cited above are all available at: http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Teleconference_DrillingBoom.cfm