Looks like some of us might soon have a shorter commute to work:<br><br>The legislation, which faces significant hurdles to becoming law before Congress breaks at the end of the month, would allow drilling as close as 50 miles from the coastline if adjacent states agree and 100 miles out no matter a state’s position. It would impose stricter oversight on the agency that handles oil leasing and royalty payments after recent disclosures of improper relationships between its employees and oil industry representatives.<br><br>“We are opening up to 400 million acres off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to drilling and expanding the availability of oil by at least 2 billion barrels,” said Representative Nick J. Rahall II, the West Virginia Democrat who leads the Natural Resources Committee. “And we have done so in a balanced, reasonable and responsible manner.” LINK<br><br>Why’s it going thru? Here’s the scoop from the NYTIMES (LINK):<br><br>Even more surprising, the turnabout is led by the House speaker, [Nancy Pelosi](http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/nancy_pelosi/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Nancy Pelosi.), who has a history of fighting oil drilling going back to the early days of her career in California. Under
a measure being assembled for a vote in the House next week, oil rigs
could go up 50 miles from the shores of states that welcome drilling
and 100 miles off <strong>any</strong> section of the United States coast — a stark
reversal on an issue that has been a Democratic environmental
touchstone since the 1980s…Ms. Pelosi and her fellow Democrats say that they are making the
change reluctantly but that the political climate rendered it
impossible to try to retain the drilling ban this year. So rather than
see the moratorium expire and open the way to drilling as close as
three miles from the coast, they said they were pushing any drilling at
least 50 miles offshore, requiring states to agree to it and tying the
whole package to a series of clean energy initiatives that have so far
languished in Congress.“The reality,” Ms. Pelosi told reporters
Thursday, is “if we don’t have something in the bill, it’s drilling
three miles offshore.”
The bill doesn’t give the states revenue sharing, so there isn’t any incentive to allow drilling. Sounds good though.
<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 18px; line-height: normal; ]<div style="height: 100%; padding-top: 7px; padding-right: 7px; padding-bottom: 7px; padding-left: 7px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font: normal normal normal 13px/1.22 arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; ]It doesn’t look like states have a choice past 100 miles. They could make life difficult for the oil companies but I’m sure the lobbyists would put some honey on whatever pill they’d be asked to swallow. </div></span>
“Drilll Here, Drill Now”! I would love an hour commute to Norfolk for work!
This makes me wanna go out and buy a Hummer while they’re cheap
<br><div>The oil company officials I have talked to tell me there are not enough drill ships or MODUs for drilling in already approved areas and there won’t be for many years to come. Even then it’s years between discovery and the finished product. When I ask a stupid question like IF there were enough drill ships MODUs and refineries would the price of gasoline drop I get one of those ‘you know better than that’ looks. Then the honest reply, it’s possible if we screw up again like what happened in the 80’s.</div><div>One must remember that oil is a worldwide commodity and there is no law saying USA oil is only to be used in the USA, heck some of the crude from Alaska used to go to Japan because the companies got a better price . The U.S. government’s Minerals Management Service requires only royalties and that is uh, negotiable; after that the oil in on the world market.</div><div>No one thinks that OPEC and the oil companies will deliberately drill their way back to $50/barrel oil.<br></div><div>BUT from a strategic stand point, I think it would certainly be a good idea for the USA to have an offshore source other than the currrent concentration in the Gulf of Mexico. </div><div> However, I wouldn’t want other areas to get so busy that I would miss the lovely scenic ride to Fourchon 
</div>
I know there isn’t much to look at anymore and it is sad that no one wants to do anything about it but 25 years ago the drive to Fourchon was scenic and when you come over the bridge in Leeville all you so was land. If we get hit by a couple major hurricanes Fourchon will be above hwy.90. But it was ok for the Oil company’s to dig all the canals and let salt water in but no one never made them put it back. I lived there all my life and I worry about it but when i’m in my boat fishing catching reds and specks I thinks about all the people that wish they were here. so don’t knock what you see.
That bill is straight appeasement. It was proposed by Pelosi and her cronies to make it look like the dems are doing something. It wont pass because none of the coastal states will pass it because they wont get any money from it. It’s also bad because if it were to pass everything within 50 miles would be PERMENTLY offlimits. <br><br>She dosent want this to pass either because shes invested with T Boone Pickins natrual gas plan. <a title=“Linkage” href="http://patterico.com/2008/08/24/nancy-pelosi-believes-in-natural-gas/]http://patterico.com/2008/08/24/nancy-pelosi-believes-in-natural-gas/ With cheap oil her investment is worth nothing, but if it oil goes back up she stands to make millions with her little investment.
They don’t need marine personnel on jack-ups so the first 50miles doesn’t worry me.
<P>More oil supply on the global market will put downward pressure on the price. The laws of supply and demand on a whole work. Global demand is increasing and will continue to do so. We all better hope that everywhere there is oil, that it is being taped. <br><br>Fifteen years ago, the politicians said that if we drilled ANWAR it would be ten years before we saw the first drop. That has been their mantra for the last fifteen years. The question is, ten years from now is a barrel of oil going to be $250 or more because we are not putting as much supply into the global market as we could?<br><br>It amazes me that the critics cry about the “trade imballance” and out of the other side of their mouths decry the selling of the oil on the global market. Again, it would still increase overall world supply and therfore reduce what we pay here. Or at least reduce the amount it is going to increase.<br><br>Sell all the grain, wood, cars and technology we can abroad, but not oil. I just don’t understand it.<br> <br>The critics also say we have reached global peak oil; yet there continues to be significant finds. That combined with the ability to reach what was impossible to reach just a few years before makes oil the predominant source of energy now and long into the future.</P>
“More oil supply on the global market will put downward pressure on the
price. The laws of supply and demand on a whole work. Global demand is
increasing and will continue to do so. We all better hope that
everywhere there is oil, that it is being taped.”<br><br> Being a finite resource you would think it would be a good idea to make it last as long as possible. Sucking the last drop out as quickly as possible doesn’t make a lot of sense to me or the oil producers. [personally I feel it’s too valuable to burn in a car] The oil companies and OPEC have no reason to drill, drill, drill, because it would lower the price too much. What they do want to do is get all the easy pickings first and at the highest profit, which is natural. The major oil companies do love to put USA oil on the world market for one major reason. They make a lot more money off it than they do say in Nigeria, Brazil, India, or the middle eastern countries. In the USA the percentage paid to the government in the form of royalties is not a drop in the barrel compared to other countries demanding 50-90%+ ownership of their crude. So, naturally they pick the most profitable low hanging fruit first. There’s more profit potential per barrel in ANWR even considering the god-awful conditions, restrictions and transportation problems than there is in Brazil, Nigeria etc. Nobody but the very naive believes the oil companies want to drill in ANWR or any place else in order to lower the price of a gallon of gasoline. These guys aren’t stupid which is why I’ve bought and held stock in oil companies for many years.
The finite supply keeps getting discovered in places that weren’t known of before. It is the fuel that drives the economic engine of the world.<br><br>A viable alternative will be brought to market when it economically makes sense.
“There’s more profit potential per barrel in ANWR even considering the
god-awful conditions, restrictions and transportation problems than
there is in Brazil, Nigeria etc.”<br> A phone call from an associate tell me the major oil companies are no longer are strongly lobbying for ANR as they now think there may not be as much oil as thought initially, the main push is from a lobbying group in Alaska which wants the state royalties. Right now deepwater GOM leases especially in areas exempt from paying any or very low royalties under the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act are getting the attention. Good news for the Gulf mariners !<br>Interesting bit of trivia from 15+ years ago. Actual exploration and production costs [not refining] in Saudi Arabia were roughly $1.50/barrel.