Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon

Opinion


EDITORIAL: The ball is with Congress

Will Democrats continue to block the development of energy resources?

Putting pressure on congressional Democrats to allow more domestic exploration, President Bush on Monday lifted an 18-year-old executive order banning offshore oil drilling.

The president has also proposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling; lifting restrictions on oil shale leasing in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, and easing regulations that block expanded oil refining capacity.


Most Popular Stories
  • EDITORIAL: Stood her ground
  • LETTERS: A moral obligation to not bankrupt the country
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'Allowed' to carry for self-defense
  • LETTERS: Nursery did the right thing with laborers
  • EDITORIAL: Numbers stink?
  • LETTERS: Teachers not most important learning variable
  • LETTERS: Agassi remains a good citizen
  • EDITORIAL: Clunk, clunk
  • LETTERS: Put aside re-election interests for nation's good
  • EDITORIAL: Gotta have faith




  • "The only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress," Mr. Bush said in a statement in the Rose Garden. "Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court."

    The president says offshore drilling could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil, curbing price hikes over time.

    Mr. Bush's proposal echoes a call by Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain to open the Outer Continental Shelf for exploration. Democrat Barack Obama, in contrast, has opposed the idea, instead arguing the government should collect money from us in taxes and then send our own money back to us to use in buying gasoline, while also stepping up efforts to develop alternative fuels.

    Elsewhere among Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he'd refuse to allow a vote on the issue. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment Committee, wailed: "This proposal is something you'd expect from an oil company CEO, not the president of the United States."

    But if oil executives want to work harder providing us with more oil, that's admirable and patriotic ... isn't it? How would their interests in such an enterprise diverge from those of an American president or Americans in general? Compare this to, say, South African diamond producers, who might well hope to block the development of new diamond fields, which could lower the value of their own holdings.

    Who is it, really, who objects to new drilling, and why? Let's run down the list.

    The long-term objection of the congressmen of the shoreline districts has been that oil spills could harm fishing and local tourist economies.

    Never say "never," but this concern must be put in perspective: In 2005, the massive Hurricane Katrina -- the third-strongest hurricane to make landfall in the United States in modern times -- failed to cause a single offshore Gulf rig to spill any appreciable oil. That's an impressive safety performance. Besides, failure of the United States to drill these international waters won't stop the resource from being developed: Cuba and other nations -- with environmental safeguards possibly lower than ours -- already drill these waters.

    The second commonly heard objection is that drilling offshore and on Alaska's north slope won't produce new oil for six or seven years, and even then won't produce enough oil to meet all our needs.

    True. But as others have pointed out, the "time delay" argument is like saying there's no sense taking a prescribed medication because it won't work for a week or more. All the more reason to get started.

    Similarly, would it make sense -- in tough times when the kids are starting to go hungry -- to let the apples from the tree in your back yard rot on the ground, rather than gathering them up and storing some away as applesauce, based on the argument that the apples "won't meet all our grocery needs, anyway"?

    These arguments are largely disingenuous. At heart, the rationale to block drilling comes down to a conspiracy theory: The oil and energy companies know they could fully supply our fuel and electric needs at no greater cost by quickly deploying current wind, solar and geothermal technologies, but they're conspiring to "hold these cheap alternatives off the market" because they're greedy.

    First, note how this contradicts the assertion that Mr. Bush "does the bidding of the oil companies" when he calls for new drilling. If the Greedy Oil Executives enjoy charging higher prices for imported oil, why would they want to go to the expense of developing their own new wells, thus increasing supply and holding down prices?

    In fact, this is little more than a new variant on the old "Guy invented an engine that would run on water but they murdered him and stole his patent and they're keeping it secret because it would blow the lid off their whole operation" fantasy.

    If these Luddites believe there are fortunes to be made developing current "alternative power" technologies to quickly generate enough power to meet our growing needs at or below current rates, let them invest their life savings and become the "greedy power barons" of tomorrow.

    Congress should indeed authorize offshore drilling, authorize drilling the ANWR, authorize exploration of the Green River Valley, and facilitate the expansion of our oil refining capacity.

    If Democrats block such common sense, things are going to get a lot worse at the gas pump, in the electric bill, and in our economy in general.

    Time to start taking names.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 40 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Report abuse

    John F wrote on July 15, 2008 10:45 PM: Sad Summerlin,

    "If the oil companies continue to be all about profit and do not have the American interests at heart, then our entire social security fund should be invested in the oil companies so that we can realize a profit off of their profits."

    Works for me. My investments are mostly in oil and pharmaceuticals.

    My point is, we can't talk about opening up new leases and actually drilling in those areas as one and the same thing because opening leases doesn't mean they're going to be drilled.

    I don't think you'll see any of my posts blaming the President for $4 gasoline. The fact that oil prices are this high is not his fault.

    Where I find fault with the President is in the way he's going about addressing this problem. We can't possibly produce enough oil to keep the cost from going up because demand is increasing so much faster than supply, and will continue to do so regardless of how many leases we open up. We should be devoting far more attention to finding ways not to use oil. Staking our future on developing more oil is a very bad idea.

    Obviously we'll need to continue using oil in the short term, which is why I've said we should open up new leases as we need them (but with millions of acres of undrilled leases we don't need new ones just yet). But expecting the opening of new leases to have an effect on gas prices or to constitute a long term solution is absurd.


    Report abuse

    tim wrote on July 15, 2008 07:53 PM: he's looking for stats on that one sad summerlin.


    Report abuse

    Sad Summerlin wrote on July 15, 2008 07:42 PM: John F -

    If the oil companies continue to be all about profit and do not have the American interests at heart, then our entire social security fund should be invested in the oil companies so that we can realize a profit off of their profits.

    Honestly, this type of attitude supports Choice A - DO NOTHING... and in fact, perhaps government should DO NOTHING. Perhaps it should be up to the States as to whether or not they want to open their coastline to drilling. They should receive the fees and permits from the oil companies as they have the risk...

    Perhaps they can put out the bids commercially and offset some of the budget shortfalls (i.e. California and Florida) and like the "smoking tax" this could help in the short term.

    But the facts are that people are blaming the Bush administration for failing to solve the crunch of $4 gas, and whether you are a REP or DEM is whether or not you blame Congress or the President.

    If the oil companies are not drilling on leases for a reason, then charge even more money for the new leases and thus make it either unprofitable for them NOT to develop, or at least realize a financial benefit on an annualized basis for them holding the leases...

    Can we at least agree on that?


    Report abuse

    LittleBird wrote on July 15, 2008 07:42 PM: Oh but wait, doesn't refining cause greenhouse gas? Drilling causes polltion.Get a bike.


    Report abuse

    tim wrote on July 15, 2008 07:25 PM: so true john,we can thank our new congress for that.they rave and rant about big mean oil,then sit on their hands,oh yeah drag them in into congress once in a while for a hearing,i mean dog and pony show.looks great for the cameras though.


    Report abuse

    John F wrote on July 15, 2008 06:50 PM: Jack,

    You're hearing what you want to hear, not what I'm saying.

    "When they've drilled on the leases they have we can open more." (8:02 a.m.)

    That doesn't mean we stop drilling, it doesn't mean we don't open up new leases for more drilling. It means we don't open up any more leases until the oil companies demonstrate a propensity for drilling on the leases they already have.

    Sad Summerlin,

    Same reasoning here. It doesn't do any good to open up more leases when the oil companies won't drill on the ones they already have. Your choice B is interesting; why do we have to open up leases now for future supply? We can open them up once we can be assured that doing so will mean more oil actually makes it to market.

    When people talk about "we" and mean American oil companies I have to laugh. What makes anyone think the oil companies have the national interest at heart? They care about their own profitability first, last, and everywhere in between. They are not, repeat not, going to do anything in our interest that gets in the way of their own profit.


    Report abuse

    Sad Summerlin wrote on July 15, 2008 06:16 PM: All emotion removed here:

    With regards to oil:

    Choice A - Do Nothing

    Choice B - Open Up Off Shore for Additional Supply in the Future

    Choice C - Release Oil Reserves for purely economic reasons


    Choice A seems to be the suggestion by many of the those on the liberal side of the fence, if not Choice C --- which amazingly will only slightly impact the price of gasoline. All three seem to be a stunt for political gain with the exception of Choice A.

    Emotion back in...

    Everyone loves to point out the problems that Bush has caused with regards to energy problems, but no one to my recollection has proposed a solution that they wish Bush would employ for this... Honestly, the Strategic Reserves are not meant to deal with price or economic issues, only foreign supply disruptions, and unless proven differently, I don't see our foreign supply being disrupted.

    So... folks... please... if you could tell President Bush, or Obama or McCain to take any particular action to solve this "crisis" (when basically the rest of the English speaking world is paying $6 - $8 per gallon).... please share now...

    Otherwise, can we stop the partisan politics on this issue?


    Report abuse

    Willy Wonka wrote on July 15, 2008 04:44 PM: Jack your being disingenuous and you know it, your just fired up. You can’t have an informed debate if you get hysterical. Clearly though, we need to stop our addiction to foreign oil, and why take huge risks with off shore drilling, leaving it up to the oil corporations to decide whether or not they want to explore and whether or not they want to drill. You know this is all at best hot air, it’s a political shell game to make it seem (pre-election) like the Republicans are doing something about the price of gas, and the Dems are holding us up. Worse case scenario its an excuse to dole out billions in subsidies to cash machine oil companies That is all this is. Has nothing to do with anything of substance. Anwar, coastal shelf … pie in the sky. Why haven’t we started using solar power, what about 70 dollar per gallon synthetic oil that our federal government spent BILLIONS of tax dollars on developing, as much as I hate it … what about corn ethanol (better than off shore drilling) what about other alternatives. Now is the time to be thinking about that, as a nation as individuals D or R lib or conservative I do agree with what I think your main point is lets start using more common sense.


    Report abuse

    dennis1944 wrote on July 15, 2008 04:35 PM: Whassa matta Dingy Harry and the idiot from the peoples republic of california. Are you afraid of a vote? Refusing to let it be voted on is ample proof you normally do not believe in the democratic way, unless of course it suits your personal agenda. Who the hell was stupid enough to elect the both of you?


    Report abuse

    Jack wrote on July 15, 2008 04:02 PM: Interesting points John F. So first you want the government to stop drilling, then you want the government to force the people who own the land to drill whether they want to or not.
    I'll tell you what, most liberals are not satisfied until they make every aspect of our lives either compulsory or forbidden.
    Let me not as STEVE says "confuse the people with facts here" but we have had an oil industry and enrgy industry regulated not by common sense or the people for the past two decades, but by environmental whackos who want people to live without any modern comfort. except of course themselves as they jet around our country in private Lears and show up at environmental conferences in their 6 mpg H1s.
    Now when the president says he wants to do something Dingy Harry says he will filibuster. Good going guys. Lets obstruct our own supplies.


    Read All Comments