Help me, internet, you're my only hope
Last year, my local college Lakeland Community College was approached by several oil and gas companies courting them for the rights to dig natural gas wells on their campus. John D. Oil and Gas Company won the bid to dig five natural gas oil wells on the campus. ("LCC was the first college in Ohio to be founded by a vote of the people." yet we, the people and students had no say in the matter.) One of the primary investors and the leader of the board of trustees for Lakeland Community College was one of the Holden Family, big environmentalists in the area. (They created and oversee the Holden Arboretum.) When I spoke to Mike Mayher about the wells he assured me that John D. Oil and Gas Company was being as environmentally responsible as possible that they were using new tools and "wet drilling" technology to invoke as little disturbance to the environment as possible.
Today, (12/13/08) I went to a meeting today headed by NEOGAP a local group tied to OGAP (Oil and Gas Accountability Project) among the many people who showed up to the event were three graduate students from MIT, who have founded a group called extrACT, and came to Lakeland Community College from the south in Texas and New Mexico as well as Colorado where this kind of business is already happening. What I heard at this meeting was disheartening at best. Natural gas wells like the ones on Lakeland's campus have been popping up all over Ohio, some without any permission, with few if any royalties being paid to the land owners whom have the well on their properties. A week ago, Neogap was involved in a meeting at a Unitarian Church where a spokeswoman from OOGEEP (Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program)claimed that the drilling processes used throughout Ohio were environmentally safe and sound, the stuff used to perform this drilling is mostly soil and sand and 1% Mystery Substance. I was not at the meeting myself, but Nick O'Neal, an employee of the Lake Metroparks was and he said the woman claimed that the mystery substance was "also in diapers" and so obviously MUST be safe.
A lot of these sites have the bulk of the information and they definitely know more than I do but here is how it all runs down: A state, in this case Ohio, "deregulates" oil and gas drilling within the confines of its state removing the rights of local governments to decide where drilling can and cannot happen in their communities giving that power to a new branch of government. In our case, that branch was a sub office of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, the Minerals division. (House Bill 278) Natural Gas oil wells begin popping up all over the state with little or no consideration for their location and bypassing and ignoring all local laws regulating them. (Especially laws that keep them from digging near where children play) People are then forced, via mandatory polling, to have wells dug on there property even if they do not agree to it because the rest of the community does. Frank Skalla was one of the men who spoke to us at this meeting, he is part of a non-profit organization called LOGS (Love Our Green Spaces) recently a city park in Highland Heights was targeted by Bass Energy for a natural gas well, and the community in Highland Heights revolted against the drilling. The petitioned the city to slow down the process then started a charter amendment to protect the city park. Contained within that amendment was specific wording that protected the city parks and other green places from commercial interests. The people of Highland Heights voted overwhelmingly for the amendment and stopped the drilling, now, Bass Energy is suing the city of Highland Heights.
Ohio is now one of the least regulated states in regards to Natural Gas and Oil drilling. The MIT Group, extrACT is supported by MIT's Center For Future Civic Media and they will soon be implementing new tools to help local areas chart and report dealings with oil and gas companies, as well as health and illness outbreaks in areas where wells are pre-existing (the ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources) refuses to, and does not report on illnesses or incidents.) These tolls will include Landman Report Card (It will probably be renamed something else here for Ohio as Landmen is mostly a southern term that we do not have up here) which is basically a review site, kind of like rotten tomatoes, but for oil and gas businesses so users can write about their experiences with these companies and write up and report issues with these companies for others to view. Also, a Drill Well program, which will be using something like google maps to chart where oil wells are as land owners are not obligated to inform you if you have a well on your property when you rent or lease land from them. (Also, the EPA is forbidden from getting onvolved in this at all, as there is a special law that excludes oil and gas companies from the Clean Air and Clean Water acts) Once these sites go up online I will be updating this entry with the relevant information. Please, if you live in the greater NE Ohio area, or if you are an environmentalist at all, spread the word. We need people to contact Senator Tim Grendell who is sympathetic to the works of the environmental organizations like OGAP, NEOGAP and extrACT who are speaking out against this and needs your letters. I am also looking for information on Norbert Lauder and and Tom Kneehouse who both seem to be involved in this matter in some manner according to speculation.
An open letter to Senators Obama and Biden:
First, let me commend both Senator Obama and Senator Biden on the terrific campaign that they are running and their successful debates. They both are behaving in a way that is polished, tasteful and above board. This is the kind of campaign EVERYONE should be running, rather than attacking people for what their middle name is, or with whom they may have served on the board of a charity. I serve on several boards of non-profit groups, and I have never once asked the other board members what they were doing in 1969 while I was 8 years old. Good for Senators Obama and Biden for not bowing to use those kinds of tactics!
Secondly, I am a former Republican who is now 100% in favor of Barack Obama. I have donated to his campaign and have volunteered when I have been able. One issue that has popped up a couple of times in the debates makes my blood boil. The Republican candidates have raised the issue of drilling for oil now in the US as if it is some kind of magic bullet that will fix things overnight. We all know that is not the case and they know it too. This drilling to prosperity idea is a lie.
I want to make it clear that I have no associations whatsoever to the energy industry or to Mr. Pickens. I am a concerned citizen and I have common sense. Who says that the government lifting bans on drilling will cause any actual drilling? The oil companies are only going to drill if it is in their best interests to do it. It costs millions of dollars to drill for oil. The oil companies aren't going to do that unless they are convinced that the oil is there. Anything else would be stupid. I have yet to see any conclusive proof of significant, US reserves of oil that can be tapped which will change the status quo now or in the future.
The politicizing of the cost of gasoline is just that—politics as usual. No one wants to pay more for anything than we used to pay for it. Especially something we use a lot of. But consider this--gasoline costs about three times what it did in the early 1990's per gallon. Ironically, milk has had a comparable increase in price per gallon. Both used to be about $1.30 per gallon back then, and they are at or near $4.00 per gallon now. So why is there no outcry over the cost of Milk? Why is there no chant for farmers to beat their cows over the head for that one more drop of milk that could (at least theoretically) lower the price? This is all politics, and mindless politics at that. McCain and Palin are pandering to people who have jumped on a bandwagon that is on the "road to nowhere."
The only concrete, long-term solution to the US energy problem is to change completely over time from oil-based fuel to alternative fuels. I endorse real solutions over bandwagon solutions that really do not get to the bottom of anything but make a group of uninformed citizens feel better. I think it is time that the Obama campaign unmasks this kind of pandering for what it is. At the same time, I would encourage Senators Obama and Biden to think through the proposals of T. Boone Pickens. The propositions offered by Mr. Pickens possess the potential to put our country on the road to an enduring oil-free solution, while at the same time offering a significant interim overhaul to our energy problems by converting significant portions of our current oil-based energy uses over to other types of energy such as wind, solar and clean natural gas—all of which we have an abundance of here in the US.
So, the next time Senator McCain or Governor Palin raise this issue of "drill baby drill," why not unveil this for what it is--pandering to a group of people who have not taken the time to examine the facts that “drill here, drill now” incontrovertibly solves nothing; and then offer a tangible solution. I genuinely maintain that the “Pickens Plan” can furnish this solution. I do not know Mr. Pickens, or what his motives might be for having presented his plan. But I have studied his plan and I believe it will work. I am convinced that Senator Obama and Senator Biden are mindful individuals, and I am positive they can discern that the plan is a much better solution than the phony baloney offered by their opponents.
Again, I thank Senators Obama and Biden for the extraordinary campaign that they are running. I am so enthusiastic about real change. And I honestly trust in their candidacy to bring that kind of change. I just detest seeing this one issue go unanswered or partially answered since I think it is on the forefront to the future of our nation. We don’t just need change for change’ sake, we need changes that are real solutions to real problems facing our country. We need Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the White House!
Very Sincerely, your friend and avid devotee,
Mark Daniel Merritt
Mount Airy, NC
The Internet is a funny thing...it has so much information, and yet so much misinformation! Case in point...at my school, we can sit around having great discussions about all kinds of things. The other day I was saying I only go back to visit Texas (I moved east three years ago) about once a year to see my accountant. A colleague said - wow...must be a great accountant. So I mentioned that I own a little land where they have drilled for natural gas and am part-owner of an oil well - so the accountant in TX knows how to deal with that on our taxes. (I waited for the question of if I rode a horse to work when I lived there - LOL).
So - this led to a discussion of drilling off-shore for oil and what I thought about it - and I said it was a terrible idea! I brought up Gore's Challenge to America for 100% clean energy in ten years... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAnQ1cFA_zM
Wind and solar are the way to go...did you hear about Bloomburg's idea to put wind turbines on the skyscrapers of NYC? What a great idea! How about solar panels on the roofs of all the townhouses and apartments that are being built for affordable housing in NJ? I wish I had solar panels on roof of MY townhome - but it goes against the covenants.
So - most of the people were listening and agreeing. Then one guy said "yeah - but it takes years to recoup solar panels....and while we're fighting about drilling off-shore, the Chinese are already doing slant drilling off the coast of Florida, taking OUR oil and selling it back to us". HUNH?? So I searched - and sure enough - found that rhetoric on a bunch of right-wing websites - none with hard data to back it up. But that's the scary thing...so many people don't need the hard data - they believe what they want to believe. How do we fight the untruths?
Anyone who drives across the country (particularly in Southern California and Texas) can see idle oil wells everywhere. A rancher in North Dakato recently struck a rich oil deposit on his property - without exploratory drilling.
The reason the oil industry does not tap these existing resources is simply to keep prices high. Gas prices have dropped over the past few month - not because of newly drilled oil wells - but due to reduced gas spending (through the increased use of hybrids, or reduced travel).
Supply and demand - as the demand goes down, so do gas prices.
The push to open up ecologically sensitive sites like ANWR and the California/Florida coasts is to simply give more "free" lands to the oil industry. At best, this will simply increase our dependence on oil, and put more money into foreign hands. At worst, it diverts our focus/resources from the real solution: rebuilding our nation's infrastructure: roads, bridges and power grids - all of which generate jobs that cannot easily be exported overseas.
By creating a new, efficient and united power grid, we will enable the use of new power plants: geothermal, wave/tide/dams, solar (and even clean-burning coal and oil) - spurring market-driven competition, innovation, and electric cars - which in turn will create new jobs, increase exports, and strengthen our economy.
Just say no to the oil industry puppets: Bush/Palin. The Republican party has many strong/experienced women as governors and industry execs - their choice of Palin is quite transparent.
I am having Sarah Palin nightmares. I dreamt last night that she was a member of a club where they rode snowmobiles and wore the claws of drowned and starved polar bears around their necks. I have a particular thing for Polar Bears. Maybe it's their snowy whiteness or their bigness or the fact that they live in the arctic or that I have never seen one in person or touched one. Maybe it is the fact that they live so comfortably on ice. Whatever it is, I need the polar bears. I don't like raging at women. I am a Feminist and have spent my life trying to build community, help empower women and stop violence against them. It is hard to write about Sarah Palin. This is why the Sarah Palin choice was all the more insidious and cynical. The people who made this choice count on the goodness and solidarity of Feminists. But everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antithetical to Feminism which for me is part of one story -- connected to saving the earth, ending racism, empowering women, giving young girls options, opening our minds, deepening tolerance, and ending violence and war. I believe that the McCain/Palin ticket is one of the most dangerous choices of my lifetime, and should this country chose those candidates the fall-out may be so great, the destruction so vast in so many areas that America may never recover. But what is equally disturbing is the impact that duo would have on the rest of the world. Unfortunately, this is not a joke. In my lifetime I have seen the clownish, the inept, the bizarre be elected to the presidency with regularity. Sarah Palin does not believe in evolution. I take this as a metaphor. In her world and the world of Fundamentalists nothing changes or gets better or evolves. She does not believe in global warming. The melting of the arctic, the storms that are destroying our cities, the pollution and rise of cancers, are all part of God's plan. She is fighting to take the polar bears off the endangered species list. The earth, in Palin's view, is here to be taken and plundered. The wolves and the bears are here to be shot and plundered. The oil is here to be taken and plundered. Iraq is here to be taken and plundered. As she said herself of the Iraqi war, "It was a task from God." Sarah Palin does not believe in abortion. She does not believe women who are raped and incested and ripped open against their will should have a right to determine whether they have their rapist's baby or not. She obviously does not believe in sex education or birth control. I imagine her daughter was practicing abstinence and we know how many babies that makes. Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking. From what I gather she has tried to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently. She cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference. This is a woman who could and might very well be the next president of the United States. She would govern one of the most diverse populations on the earth. Sarah believes in guns. She has her own custom Austrian hunting rifle. She has been known to kill 40 caribou at a clip. She has shot hundreds of wolves from the air. Sarah believes in God. That is of course her right, her private right. But when God and Guns come together in the public sector, when war is declared in God's name, when the rights of women are denied in his name, that is the end of separation of church and state and the undoing of everything America has ever tried to be. I write to my sisters. I write because I believe we hold this election in our hands. This vote is a vote that will determine the future not just of the U.S., but of the planet. It will determine whether we create policies to save the earth or make it forever uninhabitable for humans. It will determine whether we move towards dialogue and diplomacy in the world or whether we escalate violence through invasion, undermining and attack. It will determine whether we go for oil, strip mining, coal burning or invest our money in alternatives that will free us from dependency and destruction. It will determine if money gets spent on education and healthcare or whether we build more and more methods of killing. It will determine whether America is a free open tolerant society or a closed place of fear, fundamentalism and aggression. If the Polar Bears don't move you to go and do everything in your power to get Obama elected then consider the chant that filled the hall after Palin spoke at the RNC, "Drill Drill Drill." I think of teeth when I think of drills. I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination. I think of military exercises that force mindless repetition, emptying the brain of analysis, doubt, ambiguity or dissent. I think of pain. Do we want a future of drilling? More holes in the ozone, in the floor of the sea, more holes in our thinking, in the trust between nations and peoples, more holes in the fabric of this precious thing we call life?
Eve Ensler: Drill, Drill, DrillSeptember 2008
Eve Ensler: Drill, Drill, Drill
i heart eve ensler, even more so now than ever before. this woman has awed and inspired me for many years. i came to know her through the Vagina Monologues, which i was lucky enough to see her perform solo back in 2001, and have followed her work --literary and altruistic-- ever since. she is a playwright/performer/activist and the founder of V-Day, a global movement to end (sexual) violence against women and girls. they just celebrated their 10th anniversary, V to the Tenth, in New Orleans. google her if you dare and pass this piece along to the ones you love, especially those with a vagina! thanx. i hope these words find you all snug as bugs in rugs. take care and g'nite. <3, B.
taken from the Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/drill-drill-drill_b_124829.html, during yet another shameless, self-imposed media blitz brought on by severe tropical weather and political unrest :l
All oil drilled goes on the WORLD market.
The highest bidder gets the oil.
Increased drilling off the coasts of America will guarantee two things. Oil companies will make more money and oil and gas extracted will be sold to the highest bidder and the highest bidder could the US, or, it could be China or Japan or India or France. If you think more drilling is going to save you money, or make America "free from foreign oil", think again. Can oil be drilled off our shores without a major environmental disaster destroying your favorite beach? Probably. But that's not really the question we should be asking...the question should be who does off shore drilling really help?
The average American consumer, giant multinational corporations or anyone really? In this political season when the facts get lost and are replaced by lies that appeal to the emotional instincts in all of us, it's good to have information from non-partisan, unaffiliated, sources to understand that not all problems have easy answers. This is one of them...to drill or not drill is not as simple as some would have us believe.
senator_obama@obama.senate.govWed 9/10/08 10:14 AM
Dear Alan: Thank you for advising me of your opposition to oil and gas drilling in offshore lands of Alaska, Florida, and Virginia. I appreciate hearing from you, and share your concern for our country's sensitive marine areas. Continued proposals to drill for oil is not the answer to solving our country’s energy problems. Our country needs a more balanced national energy policy that promotes conservation and the development of renewable energy sources. I support increasing the fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, promoting the use of biodiesel and ethanol fuels, and creating incentives for private companies to explore the possibilities of alternative forms of renewable energy. By relying more on energy conservation and shifting our country's goals toward exploring and expanding viable sources of renewable energy, we can develop a sound energy policy that also preserves our planet’s natural resources. Encroaching upon the vulnerable habitats of our coastline is not only bad environmental policy, it is short-sighted energy policy as well. With regard to high oil prices, the Energy Information Administration reports that drilling in the Outer Continent Shelf in the Pacific, Atlantic and eastern Gulf regions in areas that are not open to drilling “would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.” To view the full report, you can visit: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html In addition, a House and Senate Joint Economic Committee analysis found that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuse could reduce fuel prices between 1 to 4 cents by 2018, an amount that could be reduced should the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) choose to limit oil production -- a strategy they have employed in the past. I have enclosed this study for your reference. The solution to mitigating gas price shocks, therefore, is further distancing the nation from OPEC pricing and making a long-term transition to alternative energy sources and improved conservation or development of oil and natural gas substitutes. Without this approach, oil and gas drilling will only postpone what will be a major crisis -- far worse than current conditions. In the short term, however, I have worked to address the unchecked speculation that is occurring in our energy markets and contributing to the fuel price volatility experienced by motorists. On June 12, 2008, I joined my colleague Senator Dick Durbin in introducing S. 3130, a bill to increase transparency in the oil futures markets by providing greater resources to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to detect and punish price manipulation and excessive speculation. This bill also moves the CFTC inspector general out of the CFTC Chairman’s office, and stops speculators from escaping U.S. regulations by manipulating the use of foreign markets. You may also be interested to know that I introduced the Oil Subsidy Elimination for New Strategies on Energy (Oil SENSE) Act last year to repeal more than $3.7 billion of unwarranted subsidies, programs, and tax incentives for oil and gas companies that were included in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The Oil SENSE Act also requires oil and gas companies to resume payment of royalties for the production of oil or natural gas from Federal land, which could be worth more than $7 billion over the next 5 years. By removing unnecessary incentives that only encourage the expansion of offshore drilling, we can allot more resources to incentives that promote the development of renewable energy resources. Finally, I also support the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008, a proposal introduced in May by Senator Reid, as it addresses the root causes of high gas prices I discuss above. Again, Alan, thank you for contacting me. You can rest assured that I will continue to be a strong voice for our environment while working with my colleagues to develop policies that will lead to true energy independence while ensuring environmental sustainability. Sincerely, Barack Obama United States Senator
This is just shameful. This shows you what the Obama/Biden campaign is really all about.
Obama claims he is running a campaign opposed to special interest groups. What puts the lie to such claims is this button put out by the Obama campaign:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/SGeorge/Obama_polar_bears.jpg
I must be a psychic! It looks as though I may have been correct in Republicans trying to steal royalties from Alaska. I don't want to call her a sellout, but why else would you accept the nomination? See the letter below from an Alaskaian Senator who is opposed to drilling.
The Honorable Samuel W. Bodman
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
Dear Secretary Bodman,
On June 3, 2008 and July 30, 2008 respectively, your Department issued and affirmed an order pursuant to Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act that will allow two major integrated oil companies – ConocoPhillips and Marathon Oil – to export 98.1 billion cubic feet of Alaskan natural gas to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries. This order, which will allow the export of as much natural gas as is used by 1.4 million American families in a year, comes at a time when the President had demanded that the moratoria on oil and gas drilling along our environmentally-sensitive coastal areas be lifted and Americans are being warned that their winter heating bills are going to be dramatically higher. The Administration is trying to have it both ways – arguing that we need to drill everywhere because we don't have adequate energy supplies, while finding that we have so much energy that big oil companies can export it overseas and keep prices here at home higher than they would otherwise be. On its face, the order that Department has issued to allow the continued export of Alaskan natural gas does not meet the public interest test required by the Natural Gas Act and I respectfully request that you review and revoke it.
As you know, the United States has been exporting natural gas from Alaska to Japan since 1969. Historically, these exports were deemed in the public interest because there were no pipelines to the lower-48 states and no West Coast LNG terminals to bring this gas to market. Indeed, even in this most recent order, which would allow ConocoPhillips and Marathon to continue to export Alaskan natural gas when their current long-term authorization expires next April, the Department dismissed the possibility of supplying this gas to the lower-48 and only considered the local need for this natural gas within Alaska in its determination that the proposed export met the statute's public interest test.
What the Department should have fully considered, but did not, was the need for this natural gas in the lower-48 and the fact that the capability to import LNG to the West Coast has been commercially available as of May 15, 2008 – the date Sempra LNG, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy, announced that its Energía Costa Azul LNG terminal in Baja California was ready for commercial operation. In fact, the Department appears to have relied upon inaccurate and out of date information submitted by ConocoPhillips and Marathon on this point. For example, the Department's June 3rd order cites arguments by these companies that, "(w)ith respect to national need, CPANGC [ConocoPhillips Alaska Natural Gas Corporation] and Marathon state shipment of LNG from the Applicants' Kenai LNG facilities to the lower 48 states does not appear to be a viable option due to certain regulatory and economic hurdles."
The hurdles cited by the companies, according to the Department, are the Jones Act which restricts shipments between U.S. ports to U.S. flagged vessels, the argument "that there are no existing U.S. west coast LNG receiving terminals," and the cost of shipping LNG to the East and Gulf coasts would be prohibitive. The Costa Azul facility was specifically designed to provide natural gas to U.S. markets, as well as Mexican customers. It is connected by a cross-border pipeline system capable of delivering natural gas to the U.S. market today, and that system is being expanded to provide even more capability. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, there are no additional duties or tariffs on natural gas trade between the two countries. And because your Department already approves all exports and imports of natural gas between the U.S. and Mexico, it (and you) should be well aware of these capabilities. Since the facility is located in Mexico, the Jones Act does not apply.
Coming as it does, at a time when the Energy Information Administration (EIA), an agency within your own Department, is projecting that American consumers will be facing these high natural gas prices, it is inconceivable that the Department would accept, and apparently base its own decision upon, such flawed and out of date information. As described by the EIA in its most recent Short-Term Energy Outlook, Americans are facing dramatically higher natural gas costs this year, and especially this winter. According to EIA, the average price of natural gas consumers are expected to pay this winter will increase by more than 22% nationwide, and by more than 24% in the Western U.S. where the Alaskan gas would add to supply. EIA projects that natural gas prices will continue to remain high in future years with the spot price in 2009 averaging 25% more than 2007.
Let us gather the facts first: Read More »
The cover of this week’s edition of Newsweek is emblazoned with one word: Palin-tol-ogy. How appropriate that it sounds like paleontology, the study of ancient life, based largely on fossils. As a recovering Republican, I have been amazed at how unabashedly McCain/Palin recycle Ronald Reagan’s 30-year old ideas as solutions to today’s far different problems.
On energy, McCain/Palin give lipservice to alternative energy such as wind, solar and tide, while chanting "Drill, baby, drill!" John McCain has deliberately avoided voting on all eight attempts to pass a bill extending vital tax credits and production subsidies to expand our wind and solar industries, and pandered for votes by supporting a gas tax holiday which would only promote more gasoline consumption and intensify our addiction to oil. Gov. Palin favors opening even the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
On regulation, McCain/Palin propose getting even more regulation "off our backs," even though we've been deregulating for nearly 30 years. We are now bearing the costs of deregulation as we bail out Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and watch our home values shrink as a result of the subprime mortgage disaster. We may bear additional costs as the U. S. auto industry seeks $50 billion in taxpayer guarantees to finance retooling as it works feverishly to make vehicles that deliver better fuel economy. Had we increased fuel economy standards gradually over the past 20 years, through regulation, as the rest of the world has done, this retooling would have happened in the normal course of business, and without the need for taxpayer guarantees. An added benefit would have been reduced dependence on foreign oil.
Europeans pay more tax on gas than Americans. +/- 75% (Europe) +/- 19% (USA)
If you take out the tax, Europeans actually pays less.
All of the oil drilled in Alaska goes overseas.
So increased drilling in Alaska will not benefit us at all.
Despite repeatedly being disproved, John McCain and his campaign along with the rest of the GOP are dishing out the same false claims about their energy policy. While they propose a 'do-everything' approach, the story behind the policy is anything but. Here are some of the facts to shed some light on these myths.
1. Myth #1: Drill here, drill now (aka Drill-baby-drill)
McCain wants to open up additional offshore drilling leases to oil companies. That's all fine, if existing oil leases are fully being exploited. Unfortunately, that's not true. Here are some numbers from the Bush administration's own 'pro-drilling' experts:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/pdf/tbl10.pdf
There are a total of 58 billion barrels of oil in known reserves, of which 40 billion barrels worth of leases have already been given. Of these, oil companies are currently only drilling for 8 billion barrels worth of oil. What about the leases for the remaining 32 billion barrels of oil? As it turns out, there are a number of reasons why those are not being drilled.
New Orleans: The City That Won't Be IgnoredBy Naomi Klein - September 3, 2008
..Gustav should have been political rat poison for the Republicans, no matter how well it was managed. Yet, as Peter Baker noted in the New York Times, "rather than run away from the hurricane and its political risks, Mr. McCain ran toward it." If this strategy worked, it was at least partly because Barack Obama has been running away from New Orleans for his entire campaign....There are plenty of political reasons for this, of course. Obama's campaign is pitching itself to the middle class, not the class of discarded people New Orleans represents. The problem is that by remaining virtually silent about the most dramatic domestic outrage in modern US history, Obama created a political vacuum. When Gustav hit, all McCain needed to do to fill it was show up....It was also the time to recall that during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the official Minerals Management Service report found more than 100 accidents leading to a total of 743,400 gallons of oil spilled throughout the region. To put that figure in perspective, 100,000 gallons is classified as a "major spill.".. ..Obama was not able to make these kinds of arguments when Gustav hit. That's because his campaign had made another "strategic" decision: to compromise on offshore oil drilling. Again a vacuum that had been opened up was rapidly filled by the Republicans, who instantly (and absurdly) linked the hurricane to the need for "energy security."....In moments of crisis, it is possible to speak hard truths with great force and clarity. But when the truth has gone silent, lies, boldly told, work almost as well.
..Gustav should have been political rat poison for the Republicans, no matter how well it was managed. Yet, as Peter Baker noted in the New York Times, "rather than run away from the hurricane and its political risks, Mr. McCain ran toward it." If this strategy worked, it was at least partly because Barack Obama has been running away from New Orleans for his entire campaign..
..There are plenty of political reasons for this, of course. Obama's campaign is pitching itself to the middle class, not the class of discarded people New Orleans represents. The problem is that by remaining virtually silent about the most dramatic domestic outrage in modern US history, Obama created a political vacuum. When Gustav hit, all McCain needed to do to fill it was show up..
..It was also the time to recall that during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the official Minerals Management Service report found more than 100 accidents leading to a total of 743,400 gallons of oil spilled throughout the region. To put that figure in perspective, 100,000 gallons is classified as a "major spill.".. ..Obama was not able to make these kinds of arguments when Gustav hit. That's because his campaign had made another "strategic" decision: to compromise on offshore oil drilling. Again a vacuum that had been opened up was rapidly filled by the Republicans, who instantly (and absurdly) linked the hurricane to the need for "energy security."..
..In moments of crisis, it is possible to speak hard truths with great force and clarity. But when the truth has gone silent, lies, boldly told, work almost as well.
As Congress returns to its few remaining weeks in session this year, the Senate is poised to hold an Energy Summit and the House appears ready to move forward on comprehensive energy legislation, which could include the repeal of billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies, opening some areas for offshore drilling, extending tax breaks for efficiency programs and wind and solar development; subsidies for mass transit, and curbs on oil speculation.
Whatever shape this legislation takes, it's essential that Congress ensure protection for our land, waters, and public health.
http://action.wilderness.org/campaign/healthy_energy/w66xsed4q36djj7?
