House Votes to Lift Ban on Offshore Drilling!!!

[Mr.Conley]

WASHINGTON - The House voted Thursday to end a quarter-century offshore drilling ban and allow energy companies to tap natural gas and oil beneath waters from New England to Alaska.

Opponents of the federal ban argued that the nation needed to move closer to energy independence and insisted the gas and oil could be taken without threatening the environment and coastal beaches. They said a state choosing to keep the moratorium could do so.

The measure was approved 232-187.

But the bill’s prospects in the Senate were uncertain. Florida’s two senators have vowed to filibuster any legislation that would allow drilling within 125 miles of Florida’s coast. Other senators from several coastal states also have strongly opposed ending the drilling restrictions.

Many lawmakers fear that energy development could despoil coastal beaches, should there be a spill, and threatens the multibillion-dollar recreation and tourist economies of states where offshore energy development has been barred since the early 1980s.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13573049/

 

[jillian]

WASHINGTON - The House voted Thursday to end a quarter-century offshore drilling ban and allow energy companies to tap natural gas and oil beneath waters from New England to Alaska.

Opponents of the federal ban argued that the nation needed to move closer to energy independence and insisted the gas and oil could be taken without threatening the environment and coastal beaches. They said a state choosing to keep the moratorium could do so.

The measure was approved 232-187.

But the bill’s prospects in the Senate were uncertain. Florida’s two senators have vowed to filibuster any legislation that would allow drilling within 125 miles of Florida’s coast. Other senators from several coastal states also have strongly opposed ending the drilling restrictions.

Many lawmakers fear that energy development could despoil coastal beaches, should there be a spill, and threatens the multibillion-dollar recreation and tourist economies of states where offshore energy development has been barred since the early 1980s.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13573049/

Good to know the Senate is still a little more circumspect than the House. I wish they'd put a bit of effort into finding alternative energy sources.

 

[dilloduck]

Good to know the Senate is still a little more circumspect than the House. I wish they'd put a bit of effort into finding alternative energy sources.

Approving off-shore drilling does nothing to hinder finding alterntive enegy sources.

 

[MtnBiker]

I wish they'd put a bit of effort into finding alternative energy sources.

Why do you say that? If there is an energy source we can use why not use it. Is it better to have forgein countries drill for that oil?

 

[acludem]

This won't get through the Senate. It may not even make it out of the Senate Committee.

This is yet another giveaway to big oil from the House Republicans.

acludem

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This won't get through the Senate. It may not even make it out of the Senate Committee.

This is yet another giveaway to big oil from the House Republicans.

acludem

So you'd rather pass on another source of oil than allow oil companies to make money from it? Your suicidal commitment to spiteful nihilism is noteworthy.

 

[acludem]

I'll pass on the pollution and habitat destruction this drilling will cause and would prefer to see tax dollars being spent on alternative energy sources rather than drilling for more oil to feed our addiction. In other words, we need to start developing the Petroleum Patch since we can't quit cold turkey.

acludem

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'll pass on the pollution and habitat destruction this drilling will cause and would prefer to see tax dollars being spent on alternative energy sources rather than drilling for more oil to feed our addiction. In other words, we need to start developing the Petroleum Patch since we can't quit cold turkey.

acludem

The damage would be minimal, while your idiocy is maximal.

 

[dilloduck]

I'll pass on the pollution and habitat destruction this drilling will cause and would prefer to see tax dollars being spent on alternative energy sources rather than drilling for more oil to feed our addiction. In other words, we need to start developing the Petroleum Patch since we can't quit cold turkey.

acludem

I don't think anyone thinks petroleum is the ultimate solution. Whatever new energy source we develop will be an addiction too.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Good to know the Senate is still a little more circumspect than the House. I wish they'd put a bit of effort into finding alternative energy sources.

The Federal government gives grants to alternative energy research via the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. They also subsidize the purchase of photovoltaic systems. It'll be years before offshore drilling is up and running. In the meantime, we work on alternatives like we have been and use this when we need it most.

Approving off-shore drilling does nothing to hinder finding alterntive enegy sources.

Actually it does. Offshore drilling creates a large supply to met demand. This situation can't help but decrease prices. If the price of oil is lower, the incentive to develop alternative fuels decreases. This is very bad. However, the price is already so high, and offshore drilling is so far off a marginal that I doubt this will have a major impact.

I'll pass on the pollution and habitat destruction this drilling will cause and would prefer to see tax dollars being spent on alternative energy sources rather than drilling for more oil to feed our addiction. In other words, we need to start developing the Petroleum Patch since we can't quit cold turkey.

Actually, oil rigs aren't inherently destructive. The problem is if there is an oil spill or if the rig starts leaking chemicals into the water. An oil spill would be a major local event, and could have severe impacts on the environment and the economy of nearby coastal areas; however, the risk of an oil spill is marginal, and chemical leaks can be avoided. Barring these two unlikely events, rigs often act as reefs, increasing the size and diversity of the wildlife population nearby.

The damage would be minimal, while your idiocy is maximal.

While the risk is marginal, if an oil spill were to occur, the effects on the environment would be catastrophic. Local economies would also suffer from a decreae in tourism and damage to their primary source of revnenue, the beach.

I don't think anyone thinks petroleum is the ultimate solution. Whatever new energy source we develop will be an addiction too.

Duh. Before oil it was coal (and still is), before coal, it was wood, before wood, it was dead animals. Humans have always relyed on outside energy sources. However, while oil is by far the best source of energy we have ever encountered, there are serious environmental, geopolitical, and supply issues with oil now, and we need to switch. While offshore drilling won't help us accomplish this, it will give us greater control over our own oil supply and help ease the transition, especially since we are probably going to start seeing supply shortages within the next 10-15 years. Offshore drilling is a good thing.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

While the risk is marginal, if an oil spill were to occur, the effects on the environment would be catastrophic. Local economies would also suffer from a decreae in tourism and damage to their primary source of revnenue, the beach.

OTT in my opinion. Straight up fear-mongering. You should be ashamed.

 

[Hobbit]

Oil spills should not even be considered an issue in offshore drilling. An offshore drill is far less likely to suffer a spill than the huge oil tankers that have to travel thousands of miles through rough seas and directly over huge oil deposits to move the stuff around now. Look at the aftermath of Katrina. If I remember correctly, some offshore rigs were washed ashore, but there was no oil spill. Tanker spills are also far more severe than oil rig spills.

 

[jillian]

Approving off-shore drilling does nothing to hinder finding alterntive enegy sources.

It just screws with the environment and endangers our shores...hence Bush's bro being a NIMBY on the subject and not wanting drilling anywhere near Florida.

Why do you say that? If there is an energy source we can use why not use it. Is it better to have forgein countries drill for that oil?

Sorry. I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

 

[jillian]

The Federal government gives grants to alternative energy research via the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. They also subsidize the purchase of photovoltaic systems. It'll be years before offshore drilling is up and running. In the meantime, we work on alternatives like we have been and use this when we need it most.

If the environment were a concern of this administration, it wouldn't have lowered CAFE standards and we wouldn't have the "Blue Skies" legislation, which decreases every environmental control. And while we give tax incentives to companies for selling hybrid cars, if the companies that manufacture them sell more than a certain maximum number of hybrids, they are penalized and lose their tax benefits.

You might ask why this is the case. Answer: Bush's cabinet had people who were out of Exxon/Mobil and GM.

When Christine Todd Whitman thinks you're careless about the environment (and she is certainly no enviro-loony), you know you're a mess.

You might want to check out Russell Train's analysis of this admin's enviro-energy policies. (He was Nixon's EPA Director and left the party b/c of Bush Jr)

 

[dilloduck]

If the environment were a concern of this administration, it wouldn't have lowered CAFE standards and we wouldn't have the "Blue Skies" legislation, which decreases every environmental control. And while we give tax incentives to companies for selling hybrid cars, if the companies that manufacture them sell more than a certain maximum number of hybrids, they are penalized and lose their tax benefits.

You might ask why this is the case. Answer: Bush's cabinet had people who were out of Exxon/Mobil and GM.

When Christine Todd Whitman thinks you're careless about the environment (and she is certainly no enviro-loony), you know you're a mess.

You might want to check out Russell Train's analysis of this admin's enviro-energy policies. (He was Nixon's EPA Director and left the party b/c of Bush Jr)

Don't try to make a partisan issue out of this. How about Kenndys' case of NIMBY? Think bigger .

 

[Mr.Conley]

OTT in my opinion. Straight up fear-mongering. You should be ashamed.

Sorry, what is OTT, and what are you trying to say.

Oil spills should not even be considered an issue in offshore drilling. An offshore drill is far less likely to suffer a spill than the huge oil tankers that have to travel thousands of miles through rough seas and directly over huge oil deposits to move the stuff around now. Look at the aftermath of Katrina. If I remember correctly, some offshore rigs were washed ashore, but there was no oil spill. Tanker spills are also far more severe than oil rig spills.

While the risk of an oil spill on a rig are minimal, the possibility is still there, and the government and planners should at least plan and execute a strategy that prepares us for an oil spill. I'm not saying that we shouldn't drill offshore, I wholeheartedly support the effort, but we should take into account the possibility of an oil spill and do what we can to minimize damage to nearby coastal economies. Although a tanker spill is worse, we should still try to plan for any eventuality. An oil spill is a possibility, and would have major effects on local wildlife and nearby coastal cities. Even if the disaster would be less than a tanker, that doesn't mean we shouldn't address the issue and prepare for any eventuality. Basically, it's better to be safe than sorry.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

planners should at least plan and execute a strategy

are you talking about "the controllers" ?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Conley
planners should at least plan and execute a strategy

are you talking about "the controllers" ?

Obviously. Who else do you think is capable of constructing and maintaining several hundred oil rigs off the coast? Engineers? Oil companies? As if. This is definitely a "Controllers Only" job.

 

[Hobbit]

While the risk of an oil spill on a rig are minimal, the possibility is still there, and the government and planners should at least plan and execute a strategy that prepares us for an oil spill. I'm not saying that we shouldn't drill offshore, I wholeheartedly support the effort, but we should take into account the possibility of an oil spill and do what we can to minimize damage to nearby coastal economies. Although a tanker spill is worse, we should still try to plan for any eventuality. An oil spill is a possibility, and would have major effects on local wildlife and nearby coastal cities. Even if the disaster would be less than a tanker, that doesn't mean we shouldn't address the issue and prepare for any eventuality. Basically, it's better to be safe than sorry.

There are already oil spill contingencies in place for the tankers that carry the oil. If they even needed to be adjusted to account for rig spills, the effort needed would be minimal.

 

[Mr.Conley]

There are already oil spill contingencies in place for the tankers that carry the oil. If they even needed to be adjusted to account for rig spills, the effort needed would be minimal.

Exactly, we just need to ensure that the procedures are in place so that, if anything ever did happen, the effects could be minimized.

I believe now that they've genetically engineered bacteria to "eat" oil spills and render them harmless to the environment. I'm not sure though. I'll go check.