John McCain said today that he believes what Big Oil says about the amount of oil still available in the United States' outer continental shelf, rather than estimates offered by energy experts, economists, and the government's Energy Information Administration.
A questioner in the crowd at the National Urban League conference in Orlando, Fla., asked the Republican presidential candidate about reports that offshore drilling would reap no benefit for consumers for at least a decade, if even then.
"I don't agree," McCain replied. "In fact I met with oil executives just a few days ago in California ... and the fact is that we can, using existing facilities, expand our oil production within months, according to these executives."
McCain continued, "In my view and that of oil company executives that I've talked to -- the people that actually do it, not those that comment on television, but those that actually do it -- we could, in a very short time, have a beneficial effect as we bridge the gap between our dependence on foreign oil and becoming energy independent."
"So I disagree with those experts and I've talked to the actual people that do the work, that are in the business that say within months and certainly within a very short time, we could have additional oil supply for this nation," he said. "So we ought to drill now."
Maybe the oil execs who spoke with McCain should check in with the American Petroleum Institute. The industry association states up front that opening the outer continental shelf for exploration wouldn't result in bringing new oil to market for five to ten years. Here's what API had to say [PDF]:
Before a lease sale could even occur, a complete environmental study would have to be conducted by the government. Once leased, it could take anywhere from five to 10 years for production to begin, depending on the amount of oil and gas discovered, availability of infrastructure and the geological complexity of the region. In an area like Destin Dome, offshore Florida, where there is a confirmed discovery of natural gas and infrastructure exists, supplies could come on more quickly, perhaps in less than five years. Frontier and deepwater areas with no infrastructure in place would take longer.
Guy Caruso, the Bush-appointed head of the Energy Information Administration, has said that offshore drilling wouldn't affect the price of gas very much, citing a recent report from his agency. This directly counters claims that drilling would bring down energy prices in the short term. "It does take a long time to develop those resources," said Caruso. "Therefore the price impact is muted by that."
Watch the video:
Of course, McCain is right -- oil executives have been claiming that there are potentially major gains to be made if the moratorium on offshore drilling is allowed. ExxonMobile's executives touted their support earlier this week, and Shell and BP.
McCain's rival, Democrat Barack Obama, has blasted the GOP candidate's support for offshore drilling, saying that claims of immediate benefit to consumers is disingenuous. "John McCain's proposal ... would not provide families with any relief, this year, next year, five years from now," he said. "Believe me, if I thought there was any evidence at all that drilling could save people money who are struggling to fill up their gas tanks by this summer or the next few years, I would consider it, but it won't."
Obama did, however, tell a Florida newspaper today that he could support some drilling if it were necessary to enact a comprehensive energy plan. Regardless of where the candidates stand, Congress would need to lift their ban on offshore drilling, an issue that has tied the body up in knots all this summer.
Cautious optimism for Copenhagen deal as Barcelona climate talks end
Another coal plant bites the dust
Comments
View as Flat
traeh79 Posted 11:33 am
01 Aug 2008
What a flip-flopper.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:06 pm
01 Aug 2008
Is there any felony charges you can bring against a candidate who steals campaign planks? I keep wondering if the Democrat "plumbers" are following McCain's every footstep?
"Obama Signals Support for Wider Offshore Drilling
Oil Search Would Be Part of 'Comprehensive Energy Policy' Aimed at Lower Gas Prices"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008 ...
Permalink
planetthoughts Posted 8:44 pm
01 Aug 2008
The Al Gore plan is pretty much on target. Getting 100% in 10 years could be tough because the equipment based on old, fossil-fuel technology is in every every home and commercial building at least in temperate or northern states (boilers and furnaces, as well as ovens, gas clothes driers, etc). However, that being said, I believe we COULD replace all power generation and most vehicles with renewable-based versions of today's power plants and transportation, and could implement strict conservation steps for homes and buildings (insulation), grow local food, etc. Those steps could lower emissions by about 70% right there. And we would be doing much more in homes and buildings, so that we could approach 100% in 20 years. The Al Gore vision is correct, though we may argue a bit on exact deadlines - so let's be bold, and let's get going.
David Alexander
PlanetThoughts.org
Love your Planet.
Permalink
guade00 Posted 2:40 am
02 Aug 2008
Permalink
bigTom Posted 10:32 am
02 Aug 2008
Obama's change (on drilling) is the right one. The mood of the country has changed, and being totally against the drilling could cause the wrong guys to win in November. The best thing about Clinton's presidency, was how he could preempt Republican issues. Nothing made them hate him more than to have an issue they were gonna use to destroy the Dems with taken away from them.
The most important thing to control about any new drilling, is the expectation that it will allow business as usual to continue. That has been by more the most damaging part of the existence of a few off limits areas, their existence fuels the myth that we could drill our way out of our problems, if only we were allowed to walk over the dead bodies of the environmentalists. I want this myth to die!
Secondarily, compromising on the issue, gives us the opportunity to control the regulation of the drilling. I guarantee an Obama administration would better control the drilling (and would demand a greater price for the leases), than a McCain one would.
Permalink
Russ Posted 7:17 pm
02 Aug 2008
James Howard Kunstler said this as well.
I'm aware of the hideous politics of the situation; indeed Mccain himself said somewhere that he wants drilling in order to send a psychological signal, i.e. that "the expectation that it will allow business as usual to continue" is precisely what he wants to foster.
Nevertheless, I'm not willing to sacrifice ANWAR and sustain Exxon Valdezes up and down both coasts just to prove a political point. If the people are stupid and selfish enough to fall for drill-and-burn, even though the stupidity and fraudulence of it are as simple as 2+2=4, then do you really think, when drilling doesn't produce the desired results right away, that unscrupulous demagoguery like this won't just come up with another equally stupid mantra which the "people" won't swallow equally gullibly?
This may rain on alot of people's parades here, but anyone who's waiting for the American people to wise up, learn a lesson, and start behaving maturely (which is what the "let them drill; that'll teach 'em" implies) is going to wait forever. It's not going to happen. Drill or not, America is going to keep on the way it's been going until the cars literally run out of gas and die on the freeways.
"Free ways" indeed.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:15 pm
03 Aug 2008
This needs to stop and US needs to completely redesign its infrastructure. But doing so will badly hurt the profits of big companies. The GOP will do its best to prevent this from happening.
McCain is just a puppet being pulled from the back by oil execs
Permalink
GoodCheer Posted 4:50 am
04 Aug 2008
With oil still over $120/bbl, I would think a lease could be something like:
Land lease (pay to play) PLUS
$25 per barrel extracted PLUS
$100,000 per barrel spilled and not recovered within 24 hours.
This way the cost of ecological / tourist industry damage of potential mishaps could be reflected, and the oil industry would make damn sure to keep it's act tight.
And an extraction fee would do wonders for the national coffers... a big find could go a long way to paying off the Bush Visa bill.
I don't see why state-owned oil should be anything other than a huge windfall for governmental revenues. Its working pretty well in Alberta, Norway, and Quatar. Lord knows we need it.
Bikes can save us!!
Permalink
Uncle Bob Posted 11:53 am
04 Aug 2008
"I don't agree," McCain replied. "In fact I met with oil executives just a few days ago in California ... and the fact is that we can, using existing facilities, expand our oil production within months, according to these executives."
I wonder what he/they are not telling us?
If it can be done with existing facilities in that short of an order, it leads me to believe that quotas for existing wells and refineries have been held back from production, creating lower supplies to inflate the cost to us the consumer.
It's like holding out on a partner until one gets what they want. We've been getting drilled on this for at least the last seven years without consent. Trauma counseling might be in order due to this absence of consent.
Permalink