General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDrill, baby drill! Obama Administration Takes a Step Toward Drilling in the Atlantic
The Obama administration recommended on Thursday that private companies begin searching for oil and gas reserves off the Atlantic Coast, an area that has been closed to drilling for decades. More than 3 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 312 trillion cubic feet of natural gas may lie in the area, which extends from Delaware to Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Oil and gas companies have lobbied administrations since the 1980s to lease ocean tracts in the Atlantic, to little effect. The release of an environmental impact study by the Interior Department that concluded undersea seismic testing could commence is a step toward doing so, although it cant happen before 2017; the current five-year plan for the Outer Continental Shelf keeps the Atlantic out of bounds. Oil industry groups, along with a coalition of governors from coastal states, are hoping to influence the next five-year plan as it develops, a staffer who has worked on offshore issues for Alaskan governor Sean Parnell told me on background. Practically, theyre hoping to find new reserves: nine companies have already applied for surveying permits, according to The New York Times.
It would be really ironic if the Obama administration, which supposedly understands climate change and thus the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, was the one to open these areas, said Steve Kretzman, the executive director of Oil Change International. The president previously green-lighted exploratory activity in the Atlantic three years ago, but scuttled the plans after the Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico in April of 2010.
The prospect of new activity in the Atlantic, even if years or decades away, raises a question that environmentalists have found themselves asking often lately: How does the administration reconcile its commitment to fighting climate change with its long standing support for expanded oil production? Obamas approach to climate is largely focused on reducing demand for fossil fuels, by promoting investment in renewables and tightening emissions standards for power plants and motor vehicles. (If Congress could ever put a price on carbon, that also would affect demand.) The implicit assumption of Obamas all of the above energy strategy is that policies intended to discourage consumption will be effective even if fossil fuels become more readily available.
<snip>
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178584/obama-administration-takes-step-toward-drilling-atlantic#
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)A knife in the back. Again.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)positive way.
Are there reserves under the Atlantic? Why shouldn't we find out? Why shouldn't we survey, and discuss environmental impact at the same time under the auspices of a Democratic Administration?
Or should we wait for the 2016 election....when a possible Republican Admin could direct a very different agenda?
We lose nothing by finding out scientific fact, and by directing the course of the research.
Obama wants to search for oil reserves in the Atlantic so he can direct the fight against drilling in the Atlantic?
Well done.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Should the administration direct surveys that have environmental impact controls to them, as I posted below......
Or shall we leave it to the 2016 victor?
BBR Esq
(87 posts)worked so well in the Gulf of Mexico...
Please.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)And the last survey was done 30 years ago. The anti-exploration route is a hard sell. Should we allow the surveys with conditions, or leave the matter to the 2016 victor???
BBR Esq
(87 posts)BP ignored environmmental safeguards that would have prevented what happened in the gulf. Nothing has changed.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Cheese4TheRat
(107 posts)I hope you don't have to apologize to your grandchildren for being a moron when it comes to global climate change.
Good God. Even DU is polluted with deniers.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)on one of the affected shores, I think I want President Obama controlling this, as opposed to leaving it for 2016....
I like the strict environmental controls outlined in the post I made below.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and set the agenda for the next five-year plan. Of course we should know if we have gas reserves....what to do with them is another matter.
Very smart of the administration to take this issue away from the Republicans.
cali
(114,904 posts)of course you're a drill, baby drill person. After all, it's dems doing it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)response to the political narrative of "Drill Baby Drill."
As I noted below, I don't think drilling is the answer (particularly since I own property that would be affected), but:
1) The current agreement expires in 2017, so I support a new agreement being formulated under this administration; and
2) Surveying is not drilling, and it is smart to take the club*** out of the Republican's hands; and
3) We should know what is available. It informs the debate. I'm for knowledge.
***the club is the claim that the Obama Administration isn't doing enough about domestic oil production. Not allowing surveying only bolsters that claim, and makes it a wedge issue in the 2014 and 2016 election particularly on the issue of jobs. Since no drilling could take place until 2017 or after, it is a pretty good political strategy to allow the surveying.
As for the environmental concerns, I think an anti-science/anti-knowledge stance isn't particularly workable, especially if you allow the next (possible Repub administration) to define the 2017 agreement. We should find out what's there, while we still have a good shot at controlling it.
cali
(114,904 posts)acceptance of drilling.
And if you think that Mary Landrieu is any better on these issues than a republican, think again
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)there? Particularly in the light of the agreements expiring in 2017, and particularly because the last surveys were 30 years ago. I think the administration should set the agenda for the future agreement....and I don't think an anti-science, anti-exploration stance is realistic.
I don't want the Atlantic drilled, BTW. But I think the administration is being very smart in burdening any 2016 administration with the following--
Were really going to require and demand a high level of environmental performance from any operator seeking to conduct surveys in these areas, BOEM Director Tommy Beaudreau told reporters Thursday. Theyre really going to have to up their game and use these technologies to avoid potential conflict and environmental impact.
http://www.ibtimes.com/obama-administration-releases-environmental-study-set-rules-oil-gas-exploration-atlantic-ocean
Think about it this way, cali---who do want handling this? A Democratic administration, now, or a possible Republican one in the future?
progressoid
(50,011 posts)Golly, maybe the most advanced and powerful nation on the planet could lead the world in alternatives.
Maybe this guy could help:
With only 2 percent of the worlds oil reserves, oil isnt enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. A strategy thats cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)runs in 2017. We haven't allowed surveys for 30 years. 2014 and 2016 loom. Do we give the Republicans a battle axe here over jobs? Or do we allow surveying with strict environmental controls and let the states start to have the debate....tourism, or possible oil jobs.
As a homeowner on an affected shore, I'm not supporting drilling...I'm for effective management of the political and environmental issues.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)saying that they're going to scour the house to see if they have any more crack, not so they can DO the crack mind you, just so that they know if there's crack in the house or not.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)than can be managed and denied now.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... and so no one will understand anything you just said.
Much easier to walk away thinking that the President just authorized oil drilling on the beach at Cape Hatteras.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Huge resources of uncontaminated water? Super-duper air scrubbers? Dairy, meat & eggs raised without hormones/contaminated feed? Grains, fruits and veggies guaranteed NOT genetically modified by Monsanto? We know they've already got the private security guards in place.
Where the hell/in what world do they think their children and grandchildren will be living?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)It is all about self interest, and future generations does not interest them because it is not about them.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)It's up to us to keep the rest of the living area sustainable. But too many people are hell bent on taking it all now, acting like it doesn't matter, and that's the fault of the plebs.
We are not all victims of the 1%, but we (not talking about DU or those who change their lives to reduce footprints) are complicit in this and no one can stop us.
The 1% can't make us decide to join cults that insist on having a dozen kids by two parents or more, doesn't make us buy gas guzzlers, doesn't make us go about and shoot everything in sight for target practice and consume the Earth's gifts like tapeworms.
What control we have, we must exert on our own lives, and try to convince others, as we are the majority and use up more resources than the entire 1% ever could, to keep our living space working for us.
We have to take the bad with the good and work with each other to save ourselves. The fingerpointing won't change what we holding the fingers are doing.
And that's not a statement about you, not personal. It's just the realization I think we need to comprehend to make things work out. And there are so many people who simply don't care about it.
jsr
(7,712 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)nearly as dangerous and it's lots easier to contain a spill or other disaster.
tclambert
(11,087 posts)Those ugly, ugly windmills vs. handsome, manly offshore drilling rigs. One oil spill affecting the Hamptons, or Kennebunkport, or Nantucket will . . . naw, probably won't stop it. They'll just make sure to build the rigs far from beachfront property owned by oil company executives.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)evilhime
(326 posts)and support? Because from all the recent actions and promises not kept I cannot feel this is what I voted for or supported. From the TPP and nominations that are from the industries they are supposed to regulate, to catering to the petroleum industry more than renewables, to still being in Afghanistan, to a host of other disappointing decisions and poorly done negotiations ... does anyone else think this is not what we were looking for? Yet 30 or more times a day I get emails asking for political hand-outs .
ladjf
(17,320 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)they're doing it for the sake of "science" and protecting the environment and to keep the Republicans from drilling.
At least, that's what some DUers claim to believe.
cali
(114,904 posts)certainly is effective tinting for glasses.
brooklynite
(94,911 posts)We can make progress on alternative fuels, but we'll still be dependent on petroleum-based energy for the foreseeable future.
cali
(114,904 posts)evidence that the wild increase in drilling is a good thing.
Yes, we're still dependent on fossil fuels. that doesn't mean that big gas and oil should operate virtually without impunity and with the blessing of the administration.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)time to get off of it. There are some areas of modern life that will require fossil fuels for a long time to come. Reality sucks at time, but you can't change it if you don't first take an honest look and work with what you have. No easy road, except in the imagination.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)We didn't vote for this...We are Democrats who recognize Climate Change and this wasn't what we thought it would be when we rejected "Drill Baby Drill" and "Bain Capital."
It's very distressing.
cali
(114,904 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Even if we did it would be said by some that we "forged it." Videos we have of promises he made are said to be not what we can see him saying. It's said that we didn't listen or view the speeches carefully enough to parse his real "intent."