Feds release almost 4 million acres in Alaska for drilling
posted at 9:00 am on July 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
The Bush administration didn’t waste much time after its lifting of the executive ban on off-shore drilling to make its second big gesture towards the oil markets. Late yesterday, the Bureau of Land Management opened 3.9 million acres of land in Alaska for drilling and exploration. The land had already been reserved for petroleum production, but had been kept in limbo by complaints and legal action by environmentalists:
The US federal government on Wednesday said it would open 3.9m acres of land in a designated petroleum reserve in Alaska for drilling as a means to help curb rising petrol prices. …
But the Bureau of Land Management, an agency within the US Department of the Interior, said the Alaskan land that will now be offered requires no other approvals and will be up for leasing in the autumn.
The site was set aside decades ago but development was blocked by lawsuits from environmentalists concerned about disrupting wildlife. The government has tackled these fears, making it a condition of the lease by oil and gas companies that polar bears, waterfowl and caribou are protected.
According to the New York Times, the field could contain as much as 3.7 billion barrels of oil. It could start producing oil by 2010, far shorter than the seven years that opponents of drilling claim for both off-shore and interior use. The added production will also help shore up the Alaskan pipeline, which has to have a minimum level of oil flowing in order to keep it from freezing in the winter.
Oil prices have tumbled the last two days since Bush lifted the executive order. The price on a barrel of oil fell more than $10, the largest such reduction in almost 20 years. Analysts in the media claim that the prices have fallen due to “demand destruction” and the fears of a long economic slowdown in the US, in which less energy will get expended. However, that doesn’t take into account the rising demand from China and India, which is expected to grow — and so a lack of American demand doesn’t make a lot of sense as the reason for the sharp drop. The markets may have begun to factor in more American production — and more moves to open resources in the US could add to the momentum.
The Bush administration is on the right track. Congress needs to follow suit — immediately.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
very nice!! Bush “08″
trailortrash on July 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Yes, those environmentalists are losing popularity with $4 gasoline.
carbon_footprint on July 17, 2008 at 9:06 AM
This is not rocket science. Will Congress come to the aid of the nation its members have sworn to protect and defend, or will Public Enemy #1 fail us once again?
T J Green on July 17, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Announcement of Pelosi´s heart attack in 5..4..3..2…
james hooker on July 17, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Did someone release HTML code?
Voidseeker on July 17, 2008 at 9:07 AM
The problem is that the Dems want high gas prices. They won’t come out and say it, of course, but this is what happens when energy policy is driven by the environmental movement.
flipflop on July 17, 2008 at 9:08 AM
The church of environmentalism shall not be pleased with this latest action, though Bush can help McCain best if he keeps issuing these executive orders on oil drilling periodically straight through the November election.
jon1979 on July 17, 2008 at 9:08 AM
I think Ed broke the front page.
flipflop on July 17, 2008 at 9:09 AM
This area is across the Colville River from Deadhorse, near the Alpine play. It is a winter-only site (ice road access), but should help a little bit, in a short time, as BP and Conoco already have rigs, etc nearby.
Think_b4_speaking on July 17, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Bush puts the onus on congress and the media spins it as demand destruction. What world does the media live in?
swami on July 17, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Exactly! I hope he does!
JeffreyLloyd on July 17, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Okay, so at some point in 2018 this oil will come into the system. Good!
Now, what can we do about refining it?
Mew
acat on July 17, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Ed,
Are you playing with the internet again?
mimi1220 on July 17, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Ed! Step AWAY from the html editor…
james hooker on July 17, 2008 at 9:12 AM
.
You must have skipped over this part:
.
Think_b4_speaking on July 17, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Let’s not jump to conclusions – it may not have been Ed.
(Allah could be pulling an all-nighter, right? right?)
Mew
acat on July 17, 2008 at 9:15 AM
sum1 stoled ha’s megahurtz!111!!
trailortrash on July 17, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Drop an email to the White House to let the President know you’re behind him 100% on expanding the drilling zones!
T J Green on July 17, 2008 at 9:16 AM
the irony is, its Environmentalist Policies that are creating record profits for Oil Companies. $4 gas at 8% profit margin is alot more than at $1.50 gas…..although I for one don’t beleive all environmentalist are sincere either.
jp on July 17, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Drudge is reporting that Nancy Pelosi has pretty much drawn a line in the sand, not to mention stuck her head in it, saying she is totally opposed to any drilling of any type. I am therefore assuming that you can present her with signatures from every man, woman, and child in this country demanding drilling be resumed, you can have the President life the ban on every type of oil exploration imaginable, you can have OPEC and the foreign producing oil agencies in the world raise the price of oil to astronomical levels, you can have this country facing an economic crisis of epic proportions, and this woman will still continue to stand in the way regardless. This is the type of leadership people voted for a couple years ago. To those who did, I have one question: how does it taste now?
pilamaye on July 17, 2008 at 9:17 AM
This is great news. But I would like to so see more on nuclear power and shale oil as well
tottoritodd on July 17, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Amen!
elraphbo on July 17, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Don’t be too hard on the media. They’re just all giddy at the opportunity to travel to Iraq with Barry and perhaps get another glimpse of him spraddlelegged in jeans, so they are bound to make a few mistakes on less important items.
a capella on July 17, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Okay, so at some point in 2018 this oil will come into the system. Good!
Now, what can we do about refining it?
Mew
acat on July 17, 2008 at 9:10 AM
.
You must have skipped over this part:
.
It could start producing oil by 2010, far shorter than the seven years that opponents of drilling claim for both off-shore and interior use.
Think_b4_speaking on July 17, 2008 at 9:14 AM
———
Think,
The 2010 estimated date appears, to me, to indicate how long it would take to drill, attach hardware, run pipe, etc. No doubt, 2010 is a lot closer than 2018, and it’d be great to have 2010 turn out true.
That said, there’s a lot more to this than just the technical side. I’m still waiting for the Greens to realize that this is actually moving forward and organize enough to (a) protest and (b) sue! sue! sue! to stop it. 2010 is, by that measure, potentially quite optimistic.
Mew
acat on July 17, 2008 at 9:19 AM
.
The real irony is that all commodity prices are going through the roof, so the majors are seeing costs accelerate faster than revenues. They made some 10% on $2 gas, and are making 8% on $4 gas.
Think_b4_speaking on July 17, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Mr.Morrissey has broken the w.w.w. internet.
Some please notify Al Gore!
gzelmiami on July 17, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Oh. My. God.
Quick! Get it started before Obama wins the presidency and signs an executive order to outlaw oil and cancel this. The speculators will see this as oil about to come down the pipe into the US, and this news alone will drive down the cost of oil, since there is about to be a huge increase in supply.
wise_man on July 17, 2008 at 9:21 AM
.
Pump station number one of the Alyeska pipeline is just across the river from the new land. BP and Conoco already have rigs on that side of the river. Just a matter of connecting the wells… That said, I am waiting for the lawsuits to stop this.
Think_b4_speaking on July 17, 2008 at 9:22 AM
I meant someone,anyone.
gzelmiami on July 17, 2008 at 9:23 AM
You may have not read the part where they said:
Not “drill, attach hardware, run pipe” ….. “producing.” As in: “here it comes.”
wise_man on July 17, 2008 at 9:24 AM
This means, that the enviromental wacko’s
today are going to achieve critical mass,
and most likely go nuclear!
Another happy UNITY group of the Liberals,
who are going to be p!ssed in Denver!haha
canopfor on July 17, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Or, Pelosi et al could pass an antitrader set of laws which prevent the downturn expected with speculator sell off, thus locking in high prices.
a capella on July 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Good on you GW Bush… If this were a game of chess; Pelosi and Reid just got check mated.
Keemo on July 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Awesome! Way to go, Mr. President! Keep the hits coming!
CP on July 17, 2008 at 9:28 AM
They could. And then I would donate as much money as I could part with to a 527 or any other organization that would broadcast this fact to the American people to urge them to vote them out of office.
wise_man on July 17, 2008 at 9:28 AM
You can’t “tackle the fears” of greenie paranoiacs; they’ll just find something else to get neurotic over. Better to tackle the actions of the obstructionists of all stripes – by any means necessary, preferably.
Spanglemaker on July 17, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Better late than never. Woo Hoo!
Buy Danish on July 17, 2008 at 9:29 AM
GIDDYAP
Fu** OPEC
Dave Rywall on July 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM
And to keep the cariboozles humping. :-)
Blake on July 17, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Well here’s “W” finally showing some leadership traits over the past week or so. What is it 7 years and 7 months since first elected? Something like that. Better late than never, I suppose. Or is it too little too late?
The greenies/environmentalists must be battled/opposed as if they were a ruthless enemy. Which they are. They’re out to destroy the U.S. economy. That is their end goal. It has nothing to do with the environment. They hate America and our Constitution. They hate capitalism. We must begin to view them as true enemies of our Nation. DD
Darvin Dowdy on July 17, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Does this mean new drama for next season’s Ice Road Truckers?
@ntif@n on July 17, 2008 at 9:33 AM
When you think about it, it is a scandal that our elected officials (I’m looking at you, donks) have been dragging their feet over this.
Blake on July 17, 2008 at 9:33 AM
I did break it — it’s fixed now.
Ed Morrissey on July 17, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Or not… They could just keep to their well-worn track, and the Next Congress, absent many of the current members, will do so
gridlock2 on July 17, 2008 at 9:37 AM
Ya know we luv ya right? Just fun to give ya a good ribbin’ every now and then. =D
Voidseeker on July 17, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Bingo.
It’s a start, and a good one. And when we start demonstrating to OPEC that we don’t need their oil like we did before, watch the prices go down, down, down.
Bob's Kid on July 17, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Questions: How do the donks play it when The Sierra Club files suit to stop the drilling? Supportive? Hands off? This is going to be a high profile deal. How do they spin it when crude drops again because of trader sell off based on this latest?
a capella on July 17, 2008 at 9:45 AM
We can’t drill our way out of this! We can’t drill our way out of this! We can’t dr…ill…our…w…Thorazine…kicking…in…ahhhhhh.
whitetop on July 17, 2008 at 9:46 AM
To be the devil’s advocate here, couldn’t have these moves been made months ago?
Was there any time constraint that prohibited the President from issuing the EO and the DoLM releasing the land for leasing?
New drilling? Awesome.
Political fallout? Mmm. The White House is going to need a lot of help here.
gabriel sutherland on July 17, 2008 at 9:47 AM
I’ve spent most of my career (30+ years) in the oil fields. Best case, you can setup and power a rig in weeks. You can tap a known reserve also in weeks. In other words, with existing separation equipment you can have oil flowing to the refinery within a few months, if that.
Even with having to build the tank farm and related separation equipment, having clean oil flowing to an existing refinery within 2 years is more than reasonable.
Rod on July 17, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Judging from the comments, I’d say this is good for a 5 point bump in the President’s satisfaction rating. I would say that Congress would get a corresponding 5 point drop, but they can’t go any farther down.
If only they could drill as well as they can earn a low approval rating…
JeffC_95 on July 17, 2008 at 9:49 AM
So, 3.9 million acres are ok, but a lot less than that in ANWR isn’t?
Have you noticed how the NYT is spinning the fall in oil prices ($10/b) as due to an economic slowdown?
ParisParamus on July 17, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Feckless To Reckless, Pelosi Should Resign
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Leadership: With oil hitting $147, Nancy Pelosi finally admits energy is a problem. But instead of drilling for it, she’s cooked up a new drain-the-reserves scheme. It’s pure politics at a time of crisis. She ought to resign.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=300927847223162&kw=Feckless
Maybe we should get an online petition going calling for both Pelosi and Reid to pack up and get out. They’re playing with fire, and we’re paying for their incompetence.
Cody1991 on July 17, 2008 at 9:51 AM
.
At this rate, Pelosi & Co. will have to drill to see their approval ratings.
Think_b4_speaking on July 17, 2008 at 9:53 AM
But BO did say it. He has no problem with high prices, he just wished they didn’t rise so quickly.
jgapinoy on July 17, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Where’s upinak? She’s so happy she’s unable to type, I guess.
txsurveyor on July 17, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Next: we need more refineries to supplement & replace the aging few we have now!
jgapinoy on July 17, 2008 at 9:56 AM
…and more nuclear power plants!
jgapinoy on July 17, 2008 at 9:57 AM
It’ll be interesting to see how brave Barry is with comments on this latest. Does he want the independents or his looney base?
a capella on July 17, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Remember, it was Reid who said petroleum is “making us sick”. He wants less, not more, available for the market.
jgapinoy on July 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Wohoo! A new source of alternative energy..aren’t the greens all for that? Carbon neutral biomass and abundant…it’s a win all the way around.
MMW on July 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Pelosi is sticking to the more important stuff…like allowing these impeachment hearings to go forward, when she knows darned well nothing will come of it.
Why worry about high fuel costs, when there’s impeachin’ afoot!
JetBoy on July 17, 2008 at 9:59 AM
The Dems are going to have to go to Def Con 5 with their attempts to line their own pockets with money from these “Alternative” energy companies. Starting Monday June 21, 2008 all cars will be illegal, all air conditioners, illegal, all planes, illegal. So get your bikes and stone wheels people.
Rbastid on July 17, 2008 at 10:00 AM
This is great news to Gov. Palin and the citizens in Alaska.
They need some refineries as well.
2theright on July 17, 2008 at 10:02 AM
If McCain would just get off the “global warming” bandwagon and get on this he would have a winning issue. The Dems have served up a soft pitch and he needs to hit it.
duff65 on July 17, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Ann Coulter has it right on with the Democrats:
Her column
originalpechanga on July 17, 2008 at 10:07 AM
What has to happen for those huge offshore California deposits to be uncapped? How far out are they? Is that entirely driven by Arnold and the CA greenies, or is it a federal issue?
a capella on July 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM
FNC just hinted at oil tumbling again this morning. We’ll see what the news is soon.
Moving to open up more drilling will have a short term effect as well as the long term benefits. Anybody who says otherwise is being disingenuous or doesn’t have a clue about commodity markets.
McCain and The Republicans in general have a big opportunity to hammer the Ds on this. And I mean really hammer – not just the usual “talking point of the week” kind of stuff. This could move votes in a big way, and benefit the economy big too.
forest on July 17, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Yeah its kind of like tax cuts with no stop to out of control spending, while tax cuts are great it doesn’t solve the problem unless spending is cut as well.
I really have to study what this leasing involves. Who and how cheap are they getting the land? Is this just a gift of new reserves to the oil companies or is there really going to be a benefit to the consumer? Without expanded refining capacity I don’t think this helps matters a whole lot.
LevStrauss on July 17, 2008 at 10:17 AM
I wonder about the timing, another thing that would probably be driving prices down is all the talk about Pakistan and Afghanistan. I see that as a potential backing down from the Iran drumbeat, there is a lot of infighting going on and the shifted focus may be a sign that the Iran attack has been thwarted by the cooler heads in the administration, the old HW Bush guard.
LevStrauss on July 17, 2008 at 10:22 AM
My only concern is that the oil will be sold to the rest of the world, and not just the US.
Can we PLEASE get some domestic locks on this stuff?
Vincenzo on July 17, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Just heard a theory there…that with China stockpiling oil for the Olympics, that oil prices should plummet after the games are over.
JetBoy on July 17, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Protectionism is not necessary. Government dictating how private property is traded is a recipe for disaster.
Oil is fungible. It doesn’t really matter where it is sold.
LimeyGeek on July 17, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Or just step out of the box and let Sarah Barracuda take a swing!
Back, back, back… Gone!
Mr. Wednesday Night on July 17, 2008 at 10:41 AM
My only concern is that the oil will be sold to the rest of the world, and not just the US.
Can we PLEASE get some domestic locks on this stuff?
Protectionism is not necessary. Government dictating how private property is traded is a recipe for disaster.
Oil is fungible. It doesn’t really matter where it is sold.
LimeyGeek on July 17, 2008 at 10:35 AM
———-
Limey,
While true, it is *also* true that in a time of war, our potential enemies would have a much more difficult time shutting off our oil supply if it were truly *our* oil, as opposed to Saudi oil coming in on big fat targets, erm, tankers.
How hard, for example, would it be for France to seize the North Sea platforms?
Mew
acat on July 17, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Thank heavens! Here I was worried the Iranians wouldn’t have enough time to complete their project. Cooler heads should allow that.
a capella on July 17, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Not sure what you mean by the lawsuits. They have to get permits in place before they even start drilling, or the pipeline process. The longest item, and always has been are the permits to be issued.
upinak on July 17, 2008 at 11:05 AM
acat it would depend if they want to seriously capture it. I wouldn’t worry about France, I would worry more about russia concering that. Since they are trying to take the world.
upinak on July 17, 2008 at 11:06 AM
The hotter heads are one of the big reasons the “project” is seen as necessary by that country. When you turn down their offer to assist in fighting Al Qaeda and put them on a wish list of countries to invade shortly after 9/11 how do you expect a country that we have tormented for fifty years to respond?
We overthrew their democracy.
We installed a dictator.
We armed their enemies to attack them.
We act as if we have some moral highground on this matter(Sticking your head in the sand or ignoring your shadow is not moral highground).
We now occupy both their borders.
The longer we continue to think we can control the “global order” as they say in Foreign Affairs, the more destructive the nemesis that will result from such hubris. We cannot prevent technology, especially when one considers how it is growing exponentially, we are just determining where that technology will be pointed. China is probably getting a big laugh over this, watching us commit suicide as a “superpower”. We could have won the Cold War if we just accepted victory.
LevStrauss on July 17, 2008 at 11:06 AM
It lowers oil prices. Economics 101. The law of supply and demand. No coincidence.
Johan Klaus on July 17, 2008 at 11:07 AM
“…complaints and legal action by environmentalists”
I hope more Americans come to realize how much environmentla extremism is costing all of us. No one is opposed to protecting the environment, no one. Most people are however rational about it and realize there are trade-offs and that man shouldn’t be sacrificed to save some insignificant bug, worm, fish, or bird. Besides, life is much hardier than the eco-Marxists give it credit for. They act as though all life hangs in the balance and will be wiped out if man acts. Tell that to all the damn pigeons at home in the big cities, the hawks that fly throughout the suburbs I live in.
DerKrieger on July 17, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Now you’re adding further complications into the mix – ‘war’ or other similar conflict placing greater risk on resource supplies. These are strategic decisions that should be planned for, of course, but they are not what we’re talking about right now.
Economically, oil is fungible, so whatever we add to the supply can be drawn down at any point in the global economy. There are certain price advantages to our own supply though – namely that a domestic supply will incur lower logistical costs – but this doesn’t preclude selling it to the highest bidder, as there will be other stock not being used that is available at a discount.
However, I expect that it would be advantageous to use domestic oil for our national market, which will push some slack into the world market, causing prices to fall for everyone.
ROFL Are you serious? Against the British Navy?
LimeyGeek on July 17, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Now, to which city would you want the Iranians to deliver the bomb.
Johan Klaus on July 17, 2008 at 11:13 AM
DC
LimeyGeek on July 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Oh bullshit! Why do you buy into that tired old cant? They just want the bomb to protect themselves from us? Crapola. They haven’t done anything in good faith since they attacked our embassy.
a capella on July 17, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Even with our low domestic supply, most of our imported oil comes from Canada and Mexico via pipeline, not tankers. Those would be hard to cut off in time of war. Plus we have almost 800 million barrels in the strategic reserve to cover times of war or strangled supply. Other countries have strategic supplies as well. It would be ugly – there’s no doubt about that. But we are better off than we were in the 70’s before the strategic reserve even existed.
JeffC_95 on July 17, 2008 at 11:21 AM
ANWR is closet to the existing pipeline. A short 70 mile connector pipe and you are good to pump. Easy to build the connector, because it’s all flat wasteland. Won’t take anywhere near the Lord Obama’s 10 years, more like 1-2 years before the pipeline, which now runs at less than half capacity would be full again. 1.5 million barrels a day.
tarpon on July 17, 2008 at 11:31 AM
How exactly do you win something that is still going on?
The cold war hasn’t left, it retreated for a while, but it isn’t gone by any means because of those who like power and won’t let go. As you probably do not understand, Hawaii and Alaska and at time Washington have and still keep a constant eye on Russia aka soon to be re-instated USSR.
I don’t expect you to understand…. so i am going to leave it alone… as this also has nothing to do with this thread. But just IMAGINE if Alaska was still part of Russia… I bet you can’t!
upinak on July 17, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Actually where they released the Land and ANWR are about the same distance. ANWR is closest to a pipeline, that would be the badami camp.
upinak on July 17, 2008 at 11:35 AM
.
I’m assuming with Bush’s move, and Palin as gov, that the permitting would be smooth, except for the EIS process and any lawsuits filed to stall the permit process.
Think_b4_speaking on July 17, 2008 at 11:37 AM
From the post:”However, that doesn’t take into account the rising demand from China and India, which is expected to grow — and so a lack of American demand doesn’t make a lot of sense as the reason for the sharp drop.”
This is so clear that even Obama should understand it. His ‘plan’ of us using less energy would be useless-the oil is a global market. If we use less, the ’savings’ would be swallowed up by demand from others. This is simply redistribution of wealth, ala the socialist agenda. Take from those who have to give to those who don’t.
Obama’s model of “We create 10% of the world’s energy, but consume 25% so that is unfair.” is so wrong it could only seem right to a fool. We consume more because we can afford to buy more because we work more and have more money. Even in these chaotic economic times, our economy is THE marvel of the world. What’s unfair about working hard and achieving more?
Doug on July 17, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Gotcha…
I don’t see anything concernign a lawsuit coming up if you are talking about the Liberty Field and Liberty Island. They will be doing directional drilling throughout that area on the island.
They can’t file a lawsuit without justification, if BP hasn’t started drilling, there is no reason not to go. They have already tried this with Northstar Island and the issues with the Whales… which turned out that the whales like to be near the man made island as well as the polar bears and seals, etc. Nothing an environmental tree hugger can do but wait… which could be a long long time. Northstar is a neat little production island that was made in place of just a Rig and because the Arctic Ocean iced over wouldn’t be a good idea.
upinak on July 17, 2008 at 11:48 AM
OOOPPPSSSSS!!!!! Standby for poison pill lawsuits in…
5… 4…. 3…. 2….
Romeo13 on July 17, 2008 at 11:50 AM
It seems that Bush is a pretty good chess player, for the “dumb” guy he keeps getting portrayed as. This isn’t the first time he’s come up with an unexpected move to go around the opposition and achieve his goals.
Imagine the chess board like this- the Dems anticipate a move on ANWR (e.g., a rook) or the OCS (a bishop). Then, Bush drops this move on them (hey, where did that knight come from? It put me in check!)
At least, that’s how I see it.
cs89 on July 17, 2008 at 11:52 AM
DerKrieger,
The answer is…
$2.5 trillion
That’s how much not drilling offshore costs the USA economy.
The battle over drilling offshore, which any normal nation would do, is expressed in terms of protecting the tourism industry. Democratic New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine even said his state must put its $38 billion-a-year gambling and tourism industry ahead of the nation’s energy security.
So we will keep buying foreign oil to fuel the cars, planes and trains that go to New Jersey.
“Protecting” his $38 billion gambling-and-tourism industry from the imaginary harm of oil drilling over time will cost the nation $2.5 trillion in oil revenues.
The White House said that opening the Outer Continental Shelf back up to drillers would yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil.
At $140 a barrel, that’s $2.5 trillion that we are passing up, money that instead will go to buy oil from Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela — the antithesis of free nations.
To “protect” New Jersey.
From an imaginary harm.
I say imaginary because the last time I looked, Corzine was fine with oil tankers going in and out of the New Jersey area –from Saudi Arabia, not the Jersey coast. Tankers are the problem, not oil rigs. The Exxon Valdez was not a rig but a tanker.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid just turned down the latest request to open up the drilling.
Price tag: $2.5 trillion.
To make up for this lost oil, I say we ban interstate travel to Nevada and New Jersey. Travel for gambling is inessential. Gamble online or at a racetrack in West Virginia, where we do our part by producing coal.
Nahanni on July 17, 2008 at 11:55 AM
OCS in place… I am waiting for the queen to take it (Palin).
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/news.php?id=1285
upinak on July 17, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Luv ya, but thats naive.
I had a company go under because we could no longer afford an out of state intellectual property fight.
Law was on our side, but they just drug it out and drug it out until we ran out of money to fight…
Add in whacko judges, like the Judge who said the Yuka Mountain Nuke waste repository had to certified as perfectly safe for a MILLION YEARS…
There is an interest in some parts of this country to keep oil prices high… and they will use any means at their disposal to do so…
Frivalout lawsuits? Expect them soon…
Romeo13 on July 17, 2008 at 12:01 PM
As the rNC is busy throwing Bush under the bus, Bush give hope to the conservative movement. How confusing?
trs on July 17, 2008 at 12:05 PM
The Wind (Democrats) and the Sun (Bush)
An Aesop Fable
The wind and the sun argued one day over which one was the stronger. Spotting a man man traveling on the road, they sported a challenge to see which one could remove the coat from the man’s back the quickest.
The wind began. He blew strong gusts of air, so strong that the man could barely walk against them. But the man clutched his coat tight against him. The wind blew harder and longer, and the harder the wind blew, the tighter the man held his coat against him.The wind blew until he was exhausted, but he could not remove the coat from the man’s back.
It was now the sun’s turn. He gently sent his beams upon the traveler. The sun did very little, but quietly shone upon his head and back until the man became so warm that he took off his coat and headed for the nearest shade tree.
fossten on July 17, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »