PDA

View Full Version : House votes to end offshore drilling ban


zimv20
Jul 1, 2006, 05:48 PM
AP (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13573049/)


Measure passes by wide margin; bill’s chances in Senate are uncertain

WASHINGTON - Congress on Thursday took a major step toward allowing oil and gas drilling in coastal waters that have been off limits for a quarter-century, but a battle looms in the Senate over the issue.

And the Bush administration’s support for the legislation, which was approved by a 232-187 vote in the House, is lukewarm.

The House bill would end an Outer Continental Shelf drilling moratorium that Congress has renewed every year since 1981. It covers 85 percent of the country’s coastal waters — everywhere except the central and western Gulf of Mexico and some areas off Alaska.

Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., a leading proponent for lifting the ban, said he believes a majority of the Senate wants to open the protected waters to energy companies.

Asked about White House opposition to some parts of the bill, especially a provision that would give tens of billions of dollars to states that have drilling rigs off their coasts, Pombo said, “I dare them to veto this bill.”

“They don’t like us giving money back to the states. I think it’s right,” Pombo told reporters after the vote. Forty Democrats joined most Republicans in favor of ending the drilling moratorium.

Florida filibuster possible

In the Senate, the measure is likely to face a filibuster from Florida senators and possibly others from coastal states that fear offshore energy development could threaten multibillion-dollar tourist and recreation businesses if there were a spill.

The Senate is considering a limited measure that would open an area in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, known as Lease Area 181, that goes within 100 miles of Florida. It is not under the moratorium. Even that is unlikely to pass unless its sponsors get 60 votes to overcome a filibuster from the Floridians.

(more)

i'm not going to look it up now, but it'd be interesting to see how many of the reps who voted for this are worried about their own midterm elections.

dmw007
Jul 1, 2006, 06:15 PM
With the price at the pump climbing higher and higher, I did not think it would be long before we saw legislation of this nature.

pseudobrit
Jul 1, 2006, 09:37 PM
With the price at the pump climbing higher and higher, I did not think it would be long before we saw legislation of this nature.

And of course it'll still be $4 a gallon next year anyway.

solvs
Jul 1, 2006, 10:03 PM
And of course it'll still be $4 a gallon next year anyway.
Makes a good campaign ad though. And more profits for the oil companies while ravaging the environment. We need oil (technically), but I'm wondering if this is actually going to help anything. Especially in the short term.

In the past, I might have supported this, but now I'm a little more suspicious.

pseudobrit
Jul 1, 2006, 10:23 PM
Makes a good campaign ad though. And more profits for the oil companies while ravaging the environment. We need oil (technically), but I'm wondering if this is actually going to help anything. Especially in the short term.

In the past, I might have supported this, but now I'm a little more suspicious.

None other than Thomas Friedman, no liberal by any definition, would strongly disagree with the "we need oil" assessment. And he's right, to an extent; the more of it we have, the cheaper it will be short term and the less incentive there will be to get away from our reliance on it.

solvs
Jul 2, 2006, 01:44 AM
None other than Thomas Friedman, no liberal by any definition, would strongly disagree with the "we need oil" assessment. And he's right, to an extent; the more of it we have, the cheaper it will be short term and the less incentive there will be to get away from our reliance on it.
I think you misunderstood me. I should have said "technically". Or maybe, we need oil? Or we "need" oil. ;)

Subtlety doesn't come across well on the internet.

MACDRIVE
Jul 2, 2006, 02:15 AM
I'm hoping the bill gets killed in the Senate. The only way we're ever going to fully move over to ethanol and biodiesel, is for the price of oil to remain high.

Desertrat
Jul 2, 2006, 06:53 PM
I really doubt that additional offshore drilling will affect the price of oil all that much. As with the ANWR, at best it augments a declining supply.

As far as environmental harm, I can only note that the best fishing in the Gulf of Mexico is nearby the offshore rigs. IIRC, for every 100 feet of depth, there is about an acre of habitat created by the legs and braces of a rig. An entire food chain develops rather quickly, from algae and barnacles on up to game fish. Same deal as the artificial reefs we made from WW II Liberty Ship hulls.

A problem with the Gulf of Mexico as habitat is that there is little relief. It's relatively flat except for a few seamounts of small size. So, any sort of structure, from a fish's standpoint, is an improvement. Texas Parks & Wildlife experimented with banding of old tires. They found they did not need to use stainless steel. By the time ordinary strapping steel could rust, the encrusted barnacles held the whole thing together. These "tunnels" are popular with grouper.

'Rat