A not-so-subtle signal to the Gang of 10
posted at 10:50 am on August 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
While the Gang of 10 tries to defuse a potent Republican issue on energy, John McCain keeps the fuse lit in a Weekly Standard interview. McCain tells Stephen Hayes that he may rethink his opposition to drilling in ANWR, and promises to consult with Alaskan governor — and presumed VP short-lister — Sarah Palin on the issue. His statement appears to cut the ground out from underneath the Gang of 10 and offer a more expansive view on drilling than first presumed:
In late June, McCain told voters in Missouri and Minnesota that he was open to receiving new information about exploration on Alaska’s coastal plain, but noted: “I certainly haven’t changed my position.”
In an interview with THE WEEKLY STANDARD aboard his campaign plane last week, McCain made clear he has not ruled out a change in his position–to one that endorses drilling in ANWR. “I continue to examine it,” he said. So does his staff. McCain’s campaign has been quietly studying the ANWR issue and discussing the potential consequences–good and bad–of a policy change.
But in our conversation on August 13, McCain added a new wrinkle. When I asked him if he had consulted Palin about ANWR, he said that he had not yet done so. He added, “I probably should,” he said. “I will.”
So I called Palin to ask what McCain can expect to hear. The answer is that Palin, who has been mentioned as a possible McCain running mate but has not been vetted, will make a straightforward case for drilling in ANWR. She says McCain’s willingness to take another look at ANWR is “very encouraging.”
Despite a massive shift in the popularity of drilling with the American electorate, ANWR remains controversial. As much as 70% of voters favor drilling in the OCS and in interior lands to recover hundreds of billions of barrels of oil. Support for drilling in ANWR still lags, though, with a bare plurality in most polling. Many Americans still see this as a national park or preserve despite the pictures of the land in question revealing it to be a barren strip of tundra.
Why would McCain risk alienating centrists with environmental concerns to drift to a pro-ANWR drilling stance? Technically, he hasn’t done it at all — he’s just held it out as a possibility. If he intends to send a signal, its intended recipients will be pro-drilling conservatives … and compromisers in Congress. No compromise with Democrats would ever include opening ANWR to its original intended purpose. If McCain threatens to openly support ANWR drilling, it effectively torpedoes the Gang of 10 compromise.
The ANWR issue should really wait until we address the OCS and shale formations. Republicans should focus on those two areas, which have widespread and bipartisan support, rather than get those tangled up into the more controversial ANWR reserves. McCain knows this as well, but this rather obvious hint gives the GOP marching orders to keep fighting, rather than surrendering to a meaningless — and drill-less — compromise.
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 »
Might isn’t exactly a commitment.
John McCain has proven untrustworthy in these “might” situations. My guess is that he has no intention of changing his position but he is pandering to those of us who think he is wrong on this issue (and many others). Until McCain makes a definitive statement, this statement means nothing because the messenger is unreliable.
highhopes on August 16, 2008 at 10:58 AM
We’ve had lots of comments in threads here about what ANWR is, and isn’t. I still don’t understand what’s logically controversial about it.
JiangxiDad on August 16, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Drill here. Drill now. It is a national security issue. Period.
Connie on August 16, 2008 at 10:58 AM
It’s simple. If the entire range of ANWR were represented as a tennis court, the entire approximate area of land needed to drill would be about the size of a postage stamp that lies on the tennis court.
Drilling in ANWR won’t ruin the entire preserve, McCain. The Oil will flow quite some time in the future, but the news alone that this will be happening, or that one candidate for president wants to do this, and therefor it’s possibly only a few months away from the first steps – will have a positive impact on the price of oil in the market. Do it McCain.
wise_man on August 16, 2008 at 11:01 AM
ANWR.
I like the picture of the bear walking on the pipeline.
misterpeasea on August 16, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Even if you don’t want to open it up for all the world to try to buy it, have the government arrange to have exclusive rights (Since they own ANWR) to lease the land to the oil company that will do this – so it can be filled into the strategic oil reserve. Then, there will be no reason for the government to purchase oil for the reserve, freeing that oil to be refined into gasoline or be used as other petroleum products by the industry.
wise_man on August 16, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Congratulations! You’ve finally posted something critical about McCain’s positions.
highhopes on August 16, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Right. This tactic will also let the issue of resurveying ANWAR get settled. Since the area hasn’t been surveyed for 20 years or so, a new survey, with modern technology could help put it to bed one way or another.
Can you imagine the public reaction if a new survey revealed double, triple or 10X the oil reserves than originally thought? The impact on oil and gas prices would be significant if even the hint of drilling were out there.
BacaDog on August 16, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Go away you annoying insect.
wise_man on August 16, 2008 at 11:06 AM
I think once the American people learn more about ANWR they will be in favor of drilling there. It’s easily accessible. The Alaska Pipeline is nearby for easy deliverability (is that a word?!). And the caribou and bears don’t seem to mind our current activity on the North Slope. It really should be a slam dunk once everybody learns the truth.
Ordinary1 on August 16, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Exactly. And this is the sort of thing that makes the price of oil go up or down, when they learn of the supply changes over the years. Fears of a hurricane damaging refineries, price goes up. (A LOT) A company surveys discover more oil than previously thought, price goes down. (slightly.)
wise_man on August 16, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Amazing. We want to drill off the coast before drilling a frozen mud hole that few Americans will ever see. I think we should do both. But let’s face it, a catastrophic oil spill in ANWR will do nothing to all but 200 Americans who live in Kaktovic and a couple of Sierra Club types who visit the place. Our priorities are just bizarre. You could do above-ground nuclear testing in ANWR and it wouldn’t affect most Americans. Drill both. But drill that wasteland first.
fleiter on August 16, 2008 at 11:10 AM
And, the oil extracted(100%) should only be utilized for domestic use….NOT EUROPEAN!!!! And, the gasoline produced for domestic customers as well. Increase OUR supply….lower OUR prices…
DfDeportation on August 16, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Highhopes, I have a hard time believing it as well. His refusal up till now to reconsider ANWR made it seem like he was just latching on to a hot issue he could dump later. Add to that Gramnesty, ‘cutting his legs out from under him on drilling’ as Hannity described the gang of 10; I thought, and to some extent still think, I smell a rat. Gramnesty isn’t going to do anything to hurt McCain, especially not during an election year; and the gang of 10 rush to compromise on issue we’re polling well on, doesn’t make sense. It’s too soon. My own thought was that McCain was setting drilling up for failure; let the douchebag Senate Republicans take the heat, and McCain can say ‘aw shucks, wish I could drill but oh well, the Senate has spoken.’ Now I’m wondering, if he had Gramnesty set this up, so McCain could ride to the rescue and wrangle the GOP into line. It seems like that may be the case now. But that this is a McCain-Gramnesty setup I have no doubt. It’s just the goal that I’m not sure of; let’s see if he changes his mind on ANWR; if not, I bet you he’s not going to drill a damn thing, except the poor folks voting for him.
austinnelly on August 16, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Correct as well. Everyone knows what the grand canyon looks like. If someone were to propose drilling inside the grand canyon, then there would be a lot of protests. If the proponents of this could make tv commercials, or an on-line video that shows ANWR to people who haven’t seen it, complete with moving video that backs up the maps to show scale to show exactly what that is… then people would understand. Rush Limbaugh jokes about how the caribou mate under the oil pipeline because its warm. That’s funny, but it’s also true. The infrastructure won’t destroy all live within a 100 mile radius of the drilling. People need to see this.
wise_man on August 16, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Why not use some (small) percentage of the profits from ANWR oil to pay 100% the operational costs and salaries for Congress? That way, Congress could buy Washington D.C., turn it into a pastoral green paradise, build individual mansions and they can thumb their noses at the people they supposedly serve in peace?
SeniorD on August 16, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Given the events in Georgia, the controversy should be over. As Connie said, it is a national security issue. Period.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 11:19 AM
And we should belive McAmnesty because? Once a maverick always a maverick. Whatever happened about doing what is right for America. And drilling for our own oil, and keeping illegals out of the country is what is right for America
Think of all the high paying jobs that would be created if the government got out of the way of drilling, refineries, nuclear power, coal to liquids technology and all the other forms of energy that is MARKET COMPETITIVE. This nonsense around government choosing Ethanol and wind is just more BS than fact. If either was real or competitive there would be supplies of both freely available — WITHOUT THE NEED FOR TAXPAYER HANDOUTS.
tarpon on August 16, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Heh.
misterpeasea on August 16, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Great link, thanks!
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 11:27 AM
I’m still waiting for him to check in to Juan Hernandez’s positions.
Les in NC on August 16, 2008 at 11:30 AM
People are opposed to drilling there because they have been conditioned by the radical enviros to think that human life=destruction of the planet.
Look at the pictures of Anwr and the pipeline. Look at the mountain lions in your own back yard. The animals are doing fine holding on to their territory. Americans? Not so much.
PattyJ on August 16, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
wise_man on August 16, 2008 at 11:36 AM
It could be that the recent events in Russia have something to do with a possible shift as well. For one thing the Russians are talking about trying to lay claim to oil in the frozen north, for another we need to have access to oil that is not controlled by some of the people controlling the market now. Like the Russians.
Terrye on August 16, 2008 at 11:43 AM
highhopes:
Oh please. Mitt Romney shifted on just about everything. Huckabee did too. Thompson is and always been a friend and ally of McCain’s. The truth is people like you will complain if McCain shifts his position and you will claim he is wrong if he does not shift his position. The only consistent thing about you is that you obviously want to see Barack Obama in the White House. Why else would you continue to bad mouth his Republican competition. Or maybe you are still in hopes that Hillary will somehow win.
Terrye on August 16, 2008 at 11:46 AM
This is true. As well as only a few years ago, when gas cost only $2 a gallon, drilling on the coasts and places like ANWR were meet with a lot of resistance. Now, $4 a gallon is a huge increase, but I am still driving to work, I haven’t bought a bicycle and ditched my car. But the costs for the airlines who haul people, and the trucks who haul merchandise and produce, and everything else that is seeing their use of oil double in cost, this has a tremendous impact. So the importance for as you mention the Russians, and the viability of our own economy makes this a different story now, as it was only a few years ago. It’s not a ‘flip-flop’ when the situation is different, and the impact of drilling our own oil is also so much different.
wise_man on August 16, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Well said. The trouble with Obama is the flip flops occur in a matter of hours not years.
Les in NC on August 16, 2008 at 11:54 AM
That’s about ten times the total reasonable people expect is left in America’s nook & crannies.
We ain’t Saudi Arabia.
alphie on August 16, 2008 at 11:54 AM
It’s controversial because the dems say it is. The dems want us to think that ANWR is some sacred, pristine forest with fluffy little bunnies hopping around, and little butterflies fluttering in the breeze. But the problem for them is the fact that we know it’s a lie.
thekingtut on August 16, 2008 at 11:58 AM
You’re right, we ain’t. Including shale, we have more oil than Saudi Arabia.
misterpeasea on August 16, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Let’s move the Congress to ANWR.
JiangxiDad on August 16, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Shale oil is a joke, mister.
Even Exxon won’t waste any money on it.
alphie on August 16, 2008 at 12:04 PM
He will be for drilling in ANWR, after he was against it. He only listens to the last person he talked with (for example, the guy in the penguin suit convincing him on man-induced climate change)
Sen. John McCain is so quick to pick up his gold-colored cell phone to solicit advice — from senators, campaign consultants, even the stray former deputy press secretary — that aides, concerned about his tendency to adopt the last opinion he has heard, have tried to cut back on the time he has to make calls.
This is not a man of principle. Just a bad senator.
Valiant on August 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Little Lindsay GrAmnesty must be looking for his mommy right now! Muwahahahahah!!!!
sabbott on August 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Yeah, thanks for the link, alphie.
Meanwhile:
The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable. For potentially recoverable oil shale resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower bound of about 500 billion barrels. For policy planning purposes, it is enough to know that any amount in this range is very high. For example, the midpoint in our estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, 800 billion barrels of recoverable resources would last for more than 400 years.
Shell Oil Company has successfully conducted small-scale field tests of an insitu process based on slow underground heating via thermal conduction. Larger scale operations are required to establish technical viability, especially with regard to avoiding adverse impacts on groundwater quality. Shell anticipates that, in contrast to the cost estimates for mining and surface retorting, the petroleum products produced by their thermally conductive in-situ method will be competitive at crude oil prices in the mid-$20s per barrel.
Oh, and alphie? If it’s a joke, why did San Fran Nan and her buddies outlaw it?
misterpeasea on August 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Haha, mister…The Rand Corp?
Why not just link to Newsmax or Rush Limabaugh?
alphie on August 16, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Ruh Roh.
I can always tell if it is going to be a McCain said something good article, because you always use that same “determined” looking pic.
Squid Shark on August 16, 2008 at 12:17 PM
And his opponent has 300 foreign policy advisors and still can’t figure out the situation in Georgia. He can’t keep a position for more than a day or two and prefaces everything with either “I have always said” or “I have clearly said” right before reversing himself. You have to be kidding.
Les in NC on August 16, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Unreliable based on your say-so? Thanks again for the link.
Here’s a Shell (yeah, yeah, unreliable) press release. They think it’s such a big joke that they’re investing hundreds of millions of dollars. Ha ha.
And here’s a Shell shale project. Ha ha.
And here’s the unreliable Department of Energy’s take:
1,200 billion barrels of oil. More than the WORLD’S proven oil reserves.
Funny joke.
misterpeasea on August 16, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Exxon looked into shale oil, mister.
They pulled out of it.
Hardly seems worth squandering the last few drops of the Republican Party’s dignity on, does it?
alphie on August 16, 2008 at 12:42 PM
The following quote is from yesterday’s Cynthia Tucker editoral in the AJC:
“The world is changing. Russia is newly reinvigorated by its energy riches, both petroleum and natural gas. China has become such an economic powerhouse that it owns much of our debt. Other nations, including India, South Korea, Brazil and Malaysia, are elbowing their way onto the world stage. So U.S. influence was bound to wane sooner or later.”
While I remain stunned by the fecklessness of the entire editoral – I do note that she does appear to understand the fact that access to internal energy supplies is a matter of national security. Actually, I suppose I should say that she understands that fact when the energy is Russian. I am unable to state that she understands that fact when the energy sources involved are American.
JDice on August 16, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Since when were you libbies so impressed with Exxon’s credibility?
sloopy on August 16, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Even if we get the green light to dill in ANWR, we still have a political hurdle
Soooo…if BP and Conoco both put holds on activity because of these taxes, what is the incentive to produce in ANWR?
lsutiger on August 16, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Yeah, thanks for the link alphie. You saying that Exxon isn’t interested is much more credible than Shell’s multi-million dollar investment and the DOE’s optimism.
And again, alphie. Why did San Fran Nan and her buddies outlaw this joke?
misterpeasea on August 16, 2008 at 12:51 PM
I was for drilling before drilling was cool.
Speakup on August 16, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Alphie is right. Many big oil companies have taken turns trying to develop oil shale here in Colorado over the years, but not one drop of commercially-viable oil has ever been produced.
Most extraction technologies use more energy than they produce!
Viable means to exploit oil shale may come about in the future, but they simply don’t exist right now. So don’t start counting the billions of barrels in shale — we may never be able to get it.
glockman on August 16, 2008 at 12:58 PM
I do not trust McCain and fear Obama for what he is capable of doing to our country. I have a first hand feeling of what Georgia is going through.
volsense on August 16, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Uhm. Did you follow any of those links I provided?
And maybe you can tell me. Why did San Fran Nan and her buddies outlaw oil shale development if it’s so worthless?
misterpeasea on August 16, 2008 at 1:06 PM
It is my understanding that the technology exists, but the expense has always been too prohibitive.
RushBaby on August 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM
One of the interesting aspects of life in Alaska is that the price of gas in the state is currently around $10.00 per gallon in outlying areas and the price for home heating oil is just as high. I’m not sure I understand what the hell is going on up there (I guess the crude gets shipped here and gas back there) but that the people there are really getting hammered right now. The last thing they need is for the government to add a tax on the oil companies which will ultimately get passed to the consumers! Idiots!
sabbott on August 16, 2008 at 1:14 PM
I think the public is still split over ANWR because they are under the impression the area of interest where the drilling will occur looks like the beautiful areas of ANWR that we’ve all seen on television and magazine pages. The american people are smart, if they’re given the truth, they’ll decide right. So let’s show them that the area in ANWR that we want to drill is desolate, just as desolate as the areas enviro-weenies propose to put up their wind and solar power stations.
Weebork on August 16, 2008 at 1:16 PM
He’s just another inside the beltway politician. It is very hard to take him seriously and he ranks near the bottom of the “believability” scale.
Zorro on August 16, 2008 at 1:16 PM
The MSM is blitzing “Democrats Rally Toward Democrat Drilling Bill” as though there have been no Republican bills over the past 30 years attempting to maintain the American oil industry’s integrity and opportunity to provide for America’s needs.
For all of the foreign oil bought since the Democrats bound our industries with overzealous legislative restrictions for the past four decades, WHICH OF THE FOREIGN OIL COMPANIES WE PURCHASE FROM MEETS ALL OF THE PRODUCTION STANDARDS THAT THE DEMOCRAT LEGISLATION HAS BOUND UPON AMERICAN OIL INDUSTRIES?
The GOP has to hit ferociously on this issue, and never let up the pressure. It must be the UNIFIED CONSERVATIVE BILL alliance of Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats that passes because the USA can NOT afford any further vulnerability as we definitely face attack from terrorists as well as the possibility of attack from China, Korea, the Russians and Iran. Our emergency reserve MUST be kept sacred, preserved for our military and infrastructure as such an attack is truly plausible in the very near future. (Knock on wood it does not happen.) Leave it to the Democrats to set up America for the sucker punch from enemies with our hands tied behind our back.
maverick muse on August 16, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Oh, and here’s Exxon giving up on oil shale:
And here’s a 2005 article about how Exxon isn’t interested:
misterpeasea on August 16, 2008 at 1:21 PM
I am sure that a lot of people saw this at Instapundit a couple of days ago, it is about the gang of 10 deal:
SO THE PHONE RANG JUST A BIT AGO, AND IT WAS SEN. BOB CORKER, calling to talk about the “gang of ten” energy compromise plan. That’s gotten some flak from Republicans, but Corker called to say that it’s unfair. He was fired up — by contrast to his laid-back persona the last time we spoke, during the campaign — and says that in fact, the bill that he’s a co-sponsor of is a better — more pro-drilling and pro-energy — bill than the McConnell bill that garnered 44 Republican votes in the Senate. Here are some of his points:
1. The “gang of 10″ bill unilaterally opens up drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, with no state veto. The GOP bill didn’t do that, because Mel Martinez and Charlie Crist didn’t want it. Non-Gulf states Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas can opt-in if they like; the old GOP bill was opt-in everywhere, allowing Florida to block drilling in the Gulf off of its shores.
2. The bill also allows for seismic exploration along the entire continental shelf.
3. The ban on drilling within 50 miles of the coast was also in the GOP bill.
4. Contrary to many commentators’ claims, the “gang of ten” bill is not a lifeline for Obama: “What a bunch of C-R-A-P. ” (Yes, he spelled it out like that) “If Obama embraced this, he would be the biggest flipflopper ever.” A lot of the opposition to the bill is really a case of trying to keep drilling as an election issue instead of getting more drilling.
5. The bill includes a Zubrin-like flex-fuel provision, requiring that 75% of cars by 2015 and 85% by 2020 be capable of running on something besides gasoline.
6. “Our bill also opens up coal-to-liquids. We couldn’t have gotten 44 Republicans for that.”
7. The bill is “incredibly aggressive” on nuclear power, including accelerated-depreciation provisions like those for solar and wind power, more NRC resources to speed licensing, and an end to the Carter-era ban on nuclear fuel reprocessing. “We couldn’t have gotten 44 Republicans on this.”
8. The bill also promotes cellulosic ethanol.
And while people who do not like Lindsay Graham might make this deal about him, it also has supporters like Senator Thune.
I would prefer wide open drilling myself, but considering the fact that Democrats control the Congress some compromise might be necessary. Otherwise the whole thing might turn on Republicans. It is a fine line. On one hand there is a desire to push the initiative, get as much as you can from a winning issue..on the other there is a fear that if it appears that Republicans are more interesting in using the issue than solving the problem, it might backfire.
What to do, what to do…
Terrye on August 16, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Key here is WE DON”T NEED A VOTE!!!
We need to BLOCK any legislation that perpetuates the Ban….
No deal… none at all… and we win…
So, why compromise?
Romeo13 on August 16, 2008 at 1:26 PM
What are words for, when no one listens anymore? When no one listens, theres no use talking at all.
We don’t need words.
Angry Dumbo on August 16, 2008 at 1:26 PM
$30/bbl
misterpeasea on August 16, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Oh, and I don’t have the time right now… but…
The Dem meme that oil companies are not drilling on existing leases is giving them some traction…. it needs to be combated with facts.
I know for a FACT that most of the drilling on exisitng leases here in Colorado is on hold due to environmental lawsuits, and by the State government dragging its heels on permits to drill… we need to get with the oil companies and get some solid stats on WHY these leases are not being drilled on.
Romeo13 on August 16, 2008 at 1:31 PM
What the F… McCains studying the issue? How exactly?
By sitting around a lemonade with Lindsay Grahamnasty looking at vacation pictures.
Palin take his dumb ass out there in a helicopter let him out to look around and fly off leaving his stupid carcass there for a few days till the ginormous mosquitos have relieved him of half his blood supply then pick him up and ask if hes’ studied enough
Thanks Misterpeasea for the link I’ve got to learn how to do that.
God this is such a bogus non-issue! Palin slap some sense into the old fool, please, for your children and mine show this dumbass the light.
dhunter on August 16, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Nah, he was too busy asking T Boone Pickens about it last week..
Romeo13 on August 16, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Someone needs to tell all the companies currently drilling in the shale formations around Dallas-Fort Worth and in the Permian Basin area of West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico that the Barnett Shale and the Upper Devonian Woodford Shale formations are a waste of money, because they’re paying kids right out of high school $45,000 a year to work on rigs to drill into it.
(The viability of the shale in both area, and in Colorado, depends on the average price of oil. In West Texas, the shale drilling is still economically viable as long as the price remains at least in the $50-$60 range, which meant that 5-6 years ago you couldn’t make a profit from drilling through the easily fractured formations. Now you can. Colorado’s break-even cost on drilling might be a little higher, but at the current price per barrel it’s still a viable option.)
jon1979 on August 16, 2008 at 1:42 PM
If Congress doesn’t wake up and proceed to energy independence, they learned nothing from the mess in Georgia. The Domino Effect is back in force and we must be energy independent for what I see is the next Cold War. Waiting for the wind to blow….. unbelievable stupidity. There is no Reagan in the wings to lead the free world, and because we are not energy independent, we will lose this time, thanks to the Democrat liberals.
ultracon on August 16, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Correct. Just let the ban expire this fall. It doesn’t require a Gang of 10.
a capella on August 16, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Romeo13 on August 16, 2008 at 1:38 PM
I don’t think T Boone Pickens is against any drilling he sees it as a balance of payments, national security, keep our money at home issue.
His big thing is to grab the huge subsidies, and increase those subsidies on wind as he is one of the biggest wind farm owners.
Kind of like coorporate farms here in the midwest buying up set aside acres just to harvest the taxpayer monies for not doing a thing with them. No planting, no harvesting, no production.
Its’ all about the money and T Boones invested in wind and natural gas.
dhunter on August 16, 2008 at 1:49 PM
alphie,
it was twenty five years ago when Exxon pulled out of shale, back when oil was very cheap. it made sense to stop putting money into a process that wasnt profitable.
however it seems they are rethinking things
so as usual what you say turns out to be the opposite of what is factual.
chasdal on August 16, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Oh, and alphie? Where did you go?
Here’s the US Department of Energy with a study by the unreliable RAND corporation.
Idiot.
misterpeasea on August 16, 2008 at 2:04 PM
If enough people saw pictures of where they want to drill and how large that area is, it wouldn’t be a controversy.
aikidoka on August 16, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Look it’s really amazingly simple. We can drill here and refine it here or we can keep shipping our money overseas to people who chant death to America. The fact that McCain isn’t jumping up and down demanding we drill anywhere and everywhere HERE means he’s as lip locked on Dubai’s backside as Clinton and the Bushes. We can be energy independant without the huge life changes the left wants and end the insanity of the abusive relationship the Middle East has gotten us into.
Buzzy on August 16, 2008 at 2:58 PM
I think this whole thing with Russia and Georgia would give anyone second thoughts. Even though I am aware that our biggest suppliers are Canada and Mexico, it makes sense to have more available here should we need to help our allies in Europe for a short period of time. The chance of not paying top dollar is an added bonus along with the fact that Russia would have to produce and sell more to keep the current rate of income filling their treasury. As cool as I think the new stuff in the future is going to be, we cannot ignore the here and now.
Cindy Munford on August 16, 2008 at 3:20 PM
I totally disagree!!! If you concede ANWR, you are giving credence to a whole list of false premises:
1. That “the environment” should trump all national security and economic issues.
2. That “environmentalists” actually understand what they are talking about.
3. That “environmentalists” know what is good for us.
4. That States’ rights should be subordinate to federal “environmental” regulations.
5. That politicians know better than oil companies, (real) scientists, people who actually live in Alaska, and everyone else what can and should be done in ANWR.
6. That wildlife doesn’t like oil drilling.
7. That the imagined fears of a few scare mongers should stand in the way of obvious solutions to the real problem energy independence for all of us.
8. That instead of a full-bore all-out “let’s explore every solution” approach to the energy problem, we should use a piecemeal approach.
9. That “oil is evil”.
10. That “man-made global warming” is real, that “environmentalists” should be in charge of everything and that the rest of us should have to beg them for permission to live.
Absolutely NONE of these false premises should be conceded: especially to Nancy Pelosi!!!
PRESERVE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!!
DRILL HERE!!! DRILL NOW!!! PAY LESS!!!
landlines on August 16, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Valiant on August 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Wow, things change in the world day by day. You have to be ready to adapt. Why not leave ANWAR alone when gas is $2.50 a gallon? But it isn’t. And then there is Russia becoming a huge producer, I think we can see that they will withhold to control. Has anyone ever notice in politics that your stubborn if you stick to your guns and a waffler if you change your mind. Sounds like a lose/lose to me. If someone says many things based on who he is speaking to, that’s a waffler. And if you look back at the Newsweek story about the 2004 election, that same exact charge was made against Kerry. Payback from the MSM or standard procedure for Senators? Maybe that’s why they normally the nominees.
Cindy Munford on August 16, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Oil companies like limited supply and high prices.
saved on August 16, 2008 at 3:32 PM
objects…may appear closer than they are
elraphbo on August 16, 2008 at 3:35 PM
The fact that Congress is trying to dictate technology ought to be reason enough to oppose this poorly-conceived bill!!!
Remember the Ethanol mandates???? Does anybody think those were a good idea??
The “gang of 10″ bill is just an “ethanol mandate on steroids”: it will have enormous disastrous consequences (which Congress, running for cover, will claim were “unforseen”), and it will not solve any problems.
Congress should NEVER try to pick or dictate technology “winners” and “losers”: especially years into the future!!! Such dictates are characteristics of backward communist countries, and are a main reason they always are behind us technologically.
landlines on August 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM
landlines on August 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM
I agree. I noticed in SanFran Nan’s speech today that she might allow drilling if the Oil Companies dedicate the profits to alternative fuels. Why is that their jobs? They are OIL companies and it costs plenty to do the job they are already good at. Let the next Bill Gates come up with something spectacular and make tons of cash.
Cindy Munford on August 16, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Here is where McVain shows lack of leadership, conviction, and resolve.
Get some back bone for goodness sake and take a position!
madmonkphotog on August 16, 2008 at 3:41 PM
It’s really simple, though you won’t find many people here who find the argument very persuasive. The feeling among conservationists is that once you’ve violated a virgin ecosystem, you can’t unviolate it, and that there are very, very few virgins left.
Personally, I think it’s a fantasy: All the world’s ecosystems are already violated, they’re not girls, and, barring unexpected and unprecedentedly rapid economic if not evolutionary changes, sooner or later they’ll be prostituted to our economic desires. But that’s not the way that those with quasi-religious reverence for “pristine nature” feel about it.
You don’t have to agree with them or come down on their side to recognize that there’s enough sense to their argument to warrant reflection and consideration. The days when we just set the wildcatters free without much regard for what they did and what they left behind are gone. I suspect that most of even the most ardent DRILL NOW’ers favor as small a footprint as technically and economically feasible. If so, even they are acknowledging that there’s something there worth protecting and preserving.
CK MacLeod on August 16, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Perhaps the problem with drilling in ANWR is not the actual drilling–I understand, I hope correctly, that modern techniques would preserve the environment—it may be that opening the area to people to that degree might, and probably will, destroy it over time with roads and air fields, pipelines and such. I have mixed feelings about drilling there too, but wonder if it can ultimately be avoided. As for Nancy’s save face idea that profits be dedicated to alternate energy–why then, should the oil companies bother at all?
jeanie on August 16, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Romeo:
Do we really just need to stop a vote? I don’t think so. I am not sure, but I heard that there has to be a vote to lift the ban. That is why the GOP has been pushing for an up or down vote. And some of the Republicans, like Thune, who have been supporting the compromise actually claim it will result in more production of all kinds of energy.
I don’t think that they are just wussing out or something they might think this is the best deal they can get with a Democratic majority. And if the Democrats end up with 58 Senate seats it is hard to know what kind of legislation we might see next year.
Terrye on August 16, 2008 at 4:53 PM
If you look at this map, you can see red dot in the green area. That is the proposed drilling area. If they wanted to conserve their own oil infrastructure, they would send a pipe to the west (left from that red dot) to the prudhoe oil area. They wouldn’t have to cross cross the entire area with pipes. As you can see, the proposed drilling site is very close to the other existing infrastructure. You can see more details here. While I don’t know for an absolute fact, it seems to me after reading that page and others, that the entire area would be unharmed. Perhaps 99%. And the area right near the site won’t be toxic and kill all the animals outside the fence.
wise_man on August 16, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Just campaign rhetoric.
McCain NEVER actually changes his mind on any issue once he has decided; He will always return to his original idea, he merely hides it (usually unsuccessful even at hiding it for more than a few days in a row.) until he has the opportunity to do what he wanted in the first place.
LegendHasIt on August 16, 2008 at 5:07 PM
The offshore and Shale prohibitions on drilling both EXPIRE on October 1st.
Whats happened in the past is they get put into omnibus spending bills and signed as a matter of course… but if Bush threatens, and carries through, on vetoing anything the Dems send up with a renewal of the Bans? Done deal…
They expire… its the dirty little secret in Washington that some of us know.
Romeo13 on August 16, 2008 at 5:18 PM
http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=7a6c1f57-a3ff-1a28-2904-1bb865f6de45
Linky from Demint on it…
Romeo13 on August 16, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Don’t you trolls for McCain ever get tired of defending the indefensible. No, I don’t want to see Obama win but I don’t believe in lying about McCain’s record either. I simply can’t go along with your unquestioning and uncritical support and don’t intend on glossing over the truth.
Amnesty for the most undeserving from Latin America, prohibiting any drilling in ANWR, the exapanded use of stem cells as if they don’t represent life, the legitimacy of gay marriage are all areas where I disagree with McCain and I will not shut the f**k up and go along with people like you. Useful idiots at best but trolls in your single-minded support of the liberal Democrat at the top of the GOP ticket.
highhopes on August 16, 2008 at 5:30 PM
LOL, that was funny.
wise_man on August 16, 2008 at 6:06 PM
I suggest that part of the reason that ANWR is controversial is McCain himself. Some voters are attracted to McCain’s centrist views. Some of these voters would be nervous about ANWR, without thinking about it, because McCain has been against it.
Senator Thune comes from a state which I believe produces both wheat and sugar beets. The price of wheat has gone up as fast as corn because of the replacement of wheat crop lands to produce corn for the ethanol scam. Sugar beets have the potential to join the gravy train as most of the ethanol being produced for fuel is made from sugar albeit from cane.
burt on August 16, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Yeah, but theres this little thing called WEATHER, and sometimes it just does not rain much… we call these things DROUGHTS…
Now, in a drought, you have to import more food from where it IS raining, which takes… gas… which you won’t have because you will not have the Food to turn it into fuel…
Stuck on stupid.
Romeo13 on August 16, 2008 at 6:55 PM
The foot in the door and forever increasing the footprint of the petroleum site is baloney. This is limited in Prudoe. Worse conditions exist much farther south such as the tar sands in Alberta. In that region development ceases for about six months every year because the land gets warm enough so that it would become a bog if vehicle movement or other activities occurred except in the coldest months. The tar sands are many hundreds of miles north of Montana which many people think of as cold.
burt on August 16, 2008 at 6:56 PM
What is your point? I thought I made a pretty good argument that Thune is a RINO in order to subsidize his constituents at my expense.
burt on August 16, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Sorry, wasn’t pointed at you, but at the whole ethanol crowd…
Romeo13 on August 16, 2008 at 7:18 PM
A TV ad showing Alaska sumperimposed over the lower 48 would go a long way to educating people the scale about which we are talking. Words just don’t do it.
I married a lady in Delaware. She had no idea how big the West is.
Delaware is about 100 miles long. There is a sign on highway (I think) I-15 in (I think) Nevada that says, “No Services For the Next 108 Miles.”
I told her that you could put the entire State of Delaware out there and no one would notice. She was amazed at the size and openness of the West.
Likewise, I don’t think most people have any idea how vast Alaska is and insignificant in size the ANWR drilling area is.
davidk on August 16, 2008 at 8:49 PM
There is no such thing as a pristine environment. It’s just that, in the blink of an eye that we call life, there may not seem to be any discernible change in a given area. Mother Nature has the tendency to radically change the scenery, any time she feels like it, and we have to put up with it.
OldEnglish on August 16, 2008 at 8:50 PM
Oops. I just clicked on the link you provided. That’s exactly what I was talking about.
davidk on August 16, 2008 at 8:53 PM
ANWR and Lower 48
davidk on August 16, 2008 at 8:55 PM
Give me a break.
davidk on August 16, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »