Obama and off shore drilling

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sexiest_hero**

(March 31) -- For those keeping score, the immediate reaction to President Barack Obama's new offshore oil drilling policy, which could eventually open much of the East Coast up to oil drilling, was something of a disaster for the administration.

The left is in an uproar, conservatives are skeptical, and others can't make heads or tails of the political benefits, while pointing out that the president's views on offshore drilling keep shifting.

Here's a sampling of the reaction so far:

Friendly Fire

The announcement sparked a flood of attacks from the president's liberal supporters.

Stupid: In a post headlined "Obama Administration Allowing Offshore Drilling, Clearly Took Stupid Pills Today," Oliver Willis complained that, "As one of those people in one of those states along said Atlantic coastline, I'm not wild about getting a giant oil spill that washes up on our shores."

Baffling: Jonathan Hiskes wrote in Grist: "This is ... stunning. Baffling. With the new policy Obama appears to be taking a major step toward siding with carbon-polluting industries in the battle to defend the energy status quo."

Kick in the face: On Huffington Post, Morgan Goodwin says young Obama supporters are livid: "'It's like a kick in the face,' says Jonathan Ruiz of Florida International University. Jonathan campaigned for Obama for 14 months, and now he's livid about today's announcement by the administration to open half the east coast to offshore drilling."

A disappointment: Monica Potts lamented in American Prospect that "it's not like Obama said he didn't support off-shore-drilling expansion as a candidate, but this announcement is still a disappointment. The gains are likely to be small, the risks are huge, and it puts politics over evidence."

A bone to Big Oil: And at Treehugger.com, Matthew McDermott complained that: "In the end it's all just throwing a bone to the fossil fuel industry in the hopes of getting more support for some sort of climate and energy legislation."

Unfriendly Skepticism

Meanwhile, the announcement did little to sway conservatives, who mainly expressed doubts about Obama's motives.

Insultingly small: Over at Red State, Moe Lane dismissed the plan as an "insultingly small" drilling bribe: "Try again, Mr. President. Start with rescinding your interference with the Bush drilling permits, and expect to give up more. A lot more."

Cap and tax ploy: The Lonely Conservative blog isn't buying: "I'm thinking he'll allow the oil companies to do the heavy lifting before he swoops in and nationalizes the industry. That, and he's trying to get moderates to go along with cap and tax."

No thanks. Neither is Sistertoldjah: "Of course most of us like the prospect of expanding offshore drilling, but ... if voting 'yea' to expanding offshore drilling ends up being a means to an end on cap and tax for Obama and House and Senate Dems, no thanks."

Empty promises. Doug Powers warns his readers to "Keep an eye on the 'proposing' part. If Obama can get enough Republicans on board 'Cap & Trade' with a simple proposal that he knows will never be followed through, then 'Mission Accomplished' as far as Obama's concerned. Besides, any actual drilling wouldn't even take place until well after Obama's left office, so he's free to make as many empty promises as he needs to make."

Unclear Political Benefits

Others noted that the political benefits of this plan are murky, at best.

Confusion: Steve Benen, writing for the Washington Monthly: "As I understand it, the plan the White House has supported for months includes a give and take on energy -- Republicans would get the drilling and nuclear advances, while Democrats would get cap-and-trade. ... My confusion, then, is over the administration's negotiating tactics. In February, the president cleared the way for the first new U.S. nuclear power plants in more than 30 years. Today, the president will reportedly open up new opportunities for coastal drilling. In other words, Obama has already effectively given Republicans what they wanted on energy. What is he getting in return?"

Missing something? Kevin Drum had pretty much the same reaction in Mother Jones: "When it comes to energy, conservatives are crazy about two things: nuclear power and offshore drilling. Now Obama has agreed to both. But does he seriously think this will 'help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation'? Wouldn't he be better off holding this stuff in reserve and negotiating it away in return for actual support, not just hoped-for support? What am I missing here?"

Poor strategy: Matthew Yglesias, writing for Think Progress, admitted that: "I don't understand this at all. Increased coastal drilling would be a small price to pay in exchange for actual congressional votes for an overall energy package that shifts us to a low-carbon economy over time. But any price is too high a price to pay in exchange for nothing at all. This isn't the greatest environmental crime in human history, but it sure does seem like poor legislative strategy."

Obama's Shifting Views

The lack of any sort of enthusiastic response may be the result of the fact that, when it comes to offshore drilling, Obama's position has been a bit murky.

In June 2008, for example, Obama said on the presidential campaign trail that he opposed offshore drilling because: "It would have long-term consequences for our coastlines, but no short-term benefits, since it would take at least 10 years to get any oil."

But two months later, he said, he'd consider offshore drilling if that's what it took to get a deal on a comprehensive energy policy, and then tried to defend himself by saying that this "wasn't really a new position."

Then once in office, he quickly moved to block offshore drilling plans put in place at the last minute by the Bush administration, including plans to open the national outer continental shelf for drilling.

Michael Roston, trying to make sense of it all, may have come upon the best explanation.

Writing for True/Slant, he notes that "Obama's 'Drill Baby Drill (after extensive studies and only in certain places, sorry Sarah Palin)'-turn is unlikely to lead to any short-term political gain for his party in Congress. But touring a few offshore drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and off Florida's Atlantic coast in the summer of 2012? That sure will create some good photo ops and talking points for a president who's seeking four more years from middle-of-the-road voters who aren't yet sure about this whole health care thing."

I just don't understand, did he not learn anything from the healthcare debate? The other side won't agree with anything you do....ever. I'm all for being center but it's just not going to work. He won't gain one single vote and nod of agreement. Ugh, I don't mind disagreeing on somethings, but he has been chasing republican aproval litke they are an un-caring father or something.

I don't think I've been this pissed at him since fathers day in election year.

**Kilkrazy**

A lot of Republicans would respect him more if he chopped their balls off to barbecue on the White House lawn for Independence Day.

There's probably been a lot of behind the scenes deals done.

**Da Boss**

Perhaps in the current climate, this move is more sensible than people think? Sometimes these things are about economic realities rather than ideological arguments.

**Kilkrazy**

I agree.

The US is highly dependent on oil because of its car based transportation system.

Transition to a low carbon economy is inevitable in the end, because all the oil will be gone. However, extra supplies of oil, which aren't dependent on dodgy foreign allies, can ease the transition.

**Commissar Molotov**

Yeah, but these potential "extra supplies" of offshore oil are just a drop in the bucket compared to US needs... Something that was pointed out repeatedly during the 'drill, baby, drill' mania in the last election.

ONE offshore well off the coast of Virginia isn't going to do much of anything to ease our international oil requirements. This must be some kind of political maneuvering on the White House's part - and it'd better be for a darned good purpose, because this is sure as hell going to piss off every environmentalist out there.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:I agree.

The US is highly dependent on oil because of its car based transportation system.

Transition to a low carbon economy is inevitable in the end, because all the oil will be gone. However, extra supplies of oil, which aren't dependent on dodgy foreign allies, can ease the transition.

Its blindingly irrelevant. If we don't pump it the Chinese and Russians will. They are slant drilling off Cuba and US waters now.

**Kilkrazy**

Surely it's the opposite. Would you rather your oil was being pumped by Amoco or Xing Hua?

There are no real Russian oil companies. They only exist by ripping off western companies.

**Frazzled**

My point is that all the touchy feely enviro laws inthe world are irrelevant. If we don't drill and pump it, NOW, the Chinese and Russians will. They already are.

**Orkeosaurus**

So, because of this, Cap and Trade will fail?

Sounds good.

**Wrexasaur**

@ Sexiest_Hero...
Where exactly did this article come from? I am not a copy-pasta nazi, but you are in effect stealing from whoever produced this article. A link at the top of the article is just common courtesy.

**Da Boss**

Frazzled I'm not sure what you're getting at? We said we thought the touchy feely enviro legislation was probably a bad call in this case, which seems to agree with your stance?

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:My point is that all the touchy feely enviro laws inthe world are irrelevant. If we don't drill and pump it, NOW, the Chinese and Russians will. They already are.

It's not like shell would sell it too us any cheaper, and in the event of an environmental calamity they look the fool. I would prefer to advocate legal or military action against oil firms that slant drill into our territory than I would we drill it. The oil there is utterly irrelevant to our currents needs, 30 years from now that will not be the case. I would rather we have it then when it's worth something than now when all its worth is the silence of a few idiots that don't understand the number of barrels per day we use vs what that would provide us.

**Frazzled**

Da Boss wrote:Frazzled I'm not sure what you're getting at? We said we thought the touchy feely enviro legislation was probably a bad call in this case, which seems to agree with your stance?

My point is only that, in the circumstance of these particular fields, environmental issues are at best irrelevant. Shutting off the fields to US development is at worst counterproductive. Whether the tree huggers like it or not, those fields are being developed as we speak by Chinese and Russian companies. Further, these companies are much substantially less "caring" about enviro than US companies. The only thing we can do is drill ourselves or watch it go away.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote: I would rather we have it then when it's worth something than now when all its worth is the silence of a few idiots that don't understand the number of barrels per day we use vs what that would provide us.

here's where you're wrong. It won't be there. it will have already been pumped out.

**Da Boss**

Right then we're in fair agreement. I don't know why the US government wouldn't take advantage of oil nearby, if it's not going to cause complete ecological devastation. Oil spills are pretty rare, really.

**Frazzled**

yep. The enviro record on rigs is actually very good and gobs better than the competition.

Again the issue of preserving is now irrelevant. They are being explored as we speak.

**ShumaGorath**

here's where you're wrong. It won't be there. it will have already been pumped out.

Remember when I said I advocated military and legal means to stop the drilling? Its a tactical and strategic resource. Blow up the slant drilling operations after giving sufficient warning if all legal recourse fails.

yep. The enviro record on rigs is actually very good and gobs better than the competition.

Again the issue of preserving is now irrelevant. They are being explored as we speak.

Most oil spills are the product of burst pipelines or damaged transport ships. The big issue with platforms is the simple risk of pipeline damage.

**Orkeosaurus**

ShumaGorath wrote:Most oil spills are the product of burst pipelines or damaged transport ships.

Those may be more prevalent with American gunboats wailing on them.

**ShumaGorath**

Orkeosaurus wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Most oil spills are the product of burst pipelines or damaged transport ships.
Those may be more prevalent with American gunboats wailing on them.

I'm not a very caring environmentalist sometimes, though I suppose that we could just avoid hitting them and instead focus on the drilling sites themselves.

**sebster**

I'm not sure why that article is taking pains to confuse itself over Obama's strategy as it's one of the more obvious things he's done in his time in office. The strategy has two benefits, the first is to challenge the GOP's recent claims of obstructing everything going through congress for the rest of the year. Obama throws them a bone on a small but highly political issue and asks if they're going to obstruct that.

The second point is to develop a bargaining chip on future cap and trade policy.

Sure, it might cost him some enthusiasm among the environmentalists, but what are they going to do - vote Republican?

**Vladigar**

President Obama's new policy opens new areas off the East Coast for off-shore drilling and exploration!!!! ZOMG!!!! He's so bi-partisan!!!!

He also canceled existing plans so that there's no new drilling in the Pacific Ocean; no new drilling in a large portion of the Atlantic Ocean; no drilling in some of the most promising areas of the Gulf of Mexico; no new drilling in much of Alaska.

He giveth and he taketh away. Read the fine print.

Big friggin' deal.

**JEB_Stuart**

Smart political move on his part. This, more then any other move he has made, really puts the Republicans in a bind. They either have to admit that he does something right, and make the Dems look stronger, or they have to try and obstruct something that they support in order to try and burn Pres. Obama's political capital. Unfortunately for them, doing that will set the American people against them. I think they should grant it tacit approval, nothing enthusiastic, and let the left tear at itself in infighting...

**Fateweaver**

Political maneuvering.

Probably realizes after the epic fail the HCR Bill was that he'd be better off pissing off a few thousand tree-huggers than to keep pissing off the other party and giving them ammo for the mid-term election in November.

Smart move. Too smart. Had to have been someone else' idea.

**Zad Fnark**

He can say whatever he wants...

His EPA will ensure a single barrel will never be pumped out.

ZF-

**Fateweaver**

Problem is he is only selecting a FEW locations to drill when we should be drilling wherever possible that has oil.

The few locations to be drilled won't add enough petroleum to our reserves to really help us out.

Either do it right or don't do it at all. Half-assing something is half-assing something.

**ShumaGorath**

Problem is he is only selecting a FEW locations to drill when we should be drilling wherever possible that has oil.

No. We really shouldn't. Thats a strategic resource that gains in importance every day, but is utterly worthless to us right now. There isn't enough oil stateside or on our shelf to have a meaningful impact on our economy or security for more than a scant few years. It's best left for when it will actually matter and oil is 32 dollars a gallon.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Problem is he is only selecting a FEW locations to drill when we should be drilling wherever possible that has oil.

No. We really shouldn't. Thats a strategic resource that gains in importance every day, but is utterly worthless to us right now. There isn't enough oil stateside or on our shelf to have a meaningful impact on our economy or security for more than a scant few years. It's best left for when it will actually matter and oil is 32 dollars a gallon.

What part of "The Chineses are already exploring" are you not getting here Shuma?

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Problem is he is only selecting a FEW locations to drill when we should be drilling wherever possible that has oil.

No. We really shouldn't. Thats a strategic resource that gains in importance every day, but is utterly worthless to us right now. There isn't enough oil stateside or on our shelf to have a meaningful impact on our economy or security for more than a scant few years. It's best left for when it will actually matter and oil is 32 dollars a gallon.

What part of "The Chineses are already exploring" are you not getting here Shuma?

What part of "Sue them or blow up the platforms slant drilling under our territory" are you not getting here Frazzled?

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Problem is he is only selecting a FEW locations to drill when we should be drilling wherever possible that has oil.

No. We really shouldn't. Thats a strategic resource that gains in importance every day, but is utterly worthless to us right now. There isn't enough oil stateside or on our shelf to have a meaningful impact on our economy or security for more than a scant few years. It's best left for when it will actually matter and oil is 32 dollars a gallon.

What part of "The Chineses are already exploring" are you not getting here Shuma?

What part of "Sue them or blow up the platforms slant drilling under our territory" are you not getting here Frazzled?

What part of "now you're spouting such insane drivel even frazzled thinks you're going off the deep end? are you not getting here Shuma. You going to start a nukewar over slant drilling?

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Problem is he is only selecting a FEW locations to drill when we should be drilling wherever possible that has oil.

No. We really shouldn't. Thats a strategic resource that gains in importance every day, but is utterly worthless to us right now. There isn't enough oil stateside or on our shelf to have a meaningful impact on our economy or security for more than a scant few years. It's best left for when it will actually matter and oil is 32 dollars a gallon.

What part of "The Chineses are already exploring" are you not getting here Shuma?

What part of "Sue them or blow up the platforms slant drilling under our territory" are you not getting here Frazzled?

What part of "now you're spouting such insane drivel even frazzled thinks you're going off the deep end? are you not getting here Shuma. You going to start a nukewar over slant drilling?

You have to be pretty daft if you think that it would come to that over the reds attempts at slant drilling the edges of our continental shelf to get a miniscule amount of oil. Its nice that you finally acknowledged something I had said three times previous though.

Goldstargoodjob!

**Fateweaver**

Hmm. This coming from a guy who called the Bush war illegal because of the suspicion of WMD in Iraq (and lets not actually get into that convo) being all for declaring a violent act on Chinese owned oil rigs that would end up killing innocent Chinese workers.

Sue China. China owns a good portion of the US. If we lost a lawsuit (and man, that'd be one all lawyers would jump on because of the payout) they'd own the rest of the US that they don't own now.

But yeah, lets take the wait and see attitude and than cry 20 years from now when we have no oil left and everyone else has taken what we should have drilled 20 years prior.