Bush Trying To Secure Last Minute Deals for Oil

Bush has directed the Department of Interior to explore for oil off the coast of Virginia. Ken Salazar will be the new head of the Interior. Obama promises an overhaul for that department. Some environmental groups are wary of Salazar, who appears to be another pragmatist. See the video below on that.  

CNN: As the price of gas surged past $4 a gallon this summer, U.S. drilling became a hot political issue. President Bush responded by repealing a presidential offshore drilling ban put in place by his father. Then in October, a gridlocked Congress let a separate drilling moratorium expire after 26 years on the books.

Back in Virginia, environmentalists echo their Southwestern counterparts, calling the offshore push a last-ditch energy grab.

"We've got an administration on its way out, trying to make its last deal for the oil and gas industry," said Glenn Besa, director of Virginia's Sierra Club chapter.

Besa pointed to what he sees as a platoon of red flags.

"The Navy has a lot of operations out there, in the area where this drilling takes place," he said, "And the North Atlantic right whale, there's only 300 or 400 of those individual whales left, and they migrate through that area as well."

The Navy has expressed concern about the prospect of drilling rigs in the area where much of its Norfolk fleet trains. NASA has objected as well because it launches satellites and low-altitude rockets from its facility on Wallops Island, Virginia.

The state's Democratic governor, Tim Kaine, asked the Interior Department to let Virginia research possible natural gas reserves. But the agency went further, opening the process for oil and gas leasing.

Luthi defends the move without hesitation. "Oil and gas are going to continue to be a major part of our energy needs in this country," he said, "for at least the next generation."

Some nervous about Salazar:

Exxon Exec Says Inflate Your Tires

Rex Tillerson, chief executive of ExxonMobil says inflate tires to save gas. No joke.

But Tillerson also said that the combination of new technology on the supply side and energy efficiency on the demand side will make gas more affordable for the average American.

"What we can do is add new supply and to provide means for people to use the energy more efficiently, which will help reduce demand," Tillerson said. "And that's what we're spending a lot of our effort doing, is working on both sides of the demand equation and the supply equation."

Tillerson's suggestions for energy efficiency echoed recommendations by presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama, who called for tire-inflation and proper car tuneups to provide relief to distressed voters.

"Things like providing lighter weight tires, tires that retain their pressure more efficiently, lighter weight plastics to go into vehicles to reduce vehicle weight" will help consumers use gas more efficiently, according to Tillerson.

He also said that the energy problem won't be solved via drilling. There has to be a multi-pronged solution.

ABC: Instead of focusing on independence, Americans "should be developing, again, all the supply sources and all the options that we can develop in a way that's efficient and is going to provide energy at a cost that Americans can afford."

Tillerson sees ExxonMobil as more than an oil company -- more of an energy company that provides natural gas and coal while exploring alternative, renewable fuels and nuclear power. He said that the company is investing $100 million in a pilot plan to examine a new technology that can separate CO2 from gas streams.

"For ExxonMobil to make a meaningful difference, we've really got to find a way to change those technologies to provide those alternative forms of energy on a much larger scale and at a cost that people can afford," Tillerson said. "It doesn't do the consumer a lot of good to substitute an alternative fuel that costs $5 for gasoline that costs $4."

Pelosi Open to Vote On Oil Drilling

A story at CNN on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was on Larry King, said Pelosi would be open to a vote on drilling if it was part of a larger energy package.

Seems to me Pelosi has been open to a vote on oil drilling all along. What she has opposed, from what I understood, was the way the republicans framed oil drilling -- insisting that oil drilling would lead to lower gas prices, which is a misnomer.

She also rejected republican's sudden interest in getting something done as a political stunt. Oil drilling, after all, is John McCain's platform. McCain is being influenced by the oil companies. Anyone who doesn't think that oil companies are behind the push for drilling is kidding themselves.

Just giving oil companies rights to drill without the context of a larger energy package is shortsighted. Why give the oil companies what they want without getting anything in return?

CNN: On Monday night, Pelosi said the vote would need to be part of a larger discussion that would include investing in renewable energy resources and releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Those options would help bring both immediate and long-lasting solutions to the energy crisis, she said.

In her interview with King, Pelosi talked about what the government and country needs to do to avert the energy crisis and quickly bring down gas prices. The following is an edited version of the interview:
.....

King: Would you vote yes on a package that includes drilling?

Pelosi: I would not. It depends how the drilling is put forth. But I don't -- that is not excluded, let me say it that way. It depends how that is proposed, if the safeguards are there. Now, mind you, 68 million acres -- 10 million more acres in Alaska where they can drill.

But if there's -- if we can get some great things, in terms of renewable energy resources: a renewable electricity standard, wind, solar, biofuels and the rest in that context, because if you make a decision only to go with the offshore drilling, you are increasing our dependence on fossil fuels, and you will never free yourself of that addiction unless you invest in the renewable energy resources that are good for the environment, cheaper for the consumer and will reverse global warming.

And the consumer is our first responsibility. The American taxpayer owns this oil offshore, by the way. Let me make this one final point. This oil is owned by the American taxpayers. The oil companies drill. We give them money to drill there. But we get very little in return.

So I think as we have this debate, which is a very healthy one to have and I welcome it; we have to review and realign the relationship between our oil, Big Oil's profits and what it means to the consumer and the taxpayer.

King: Do you expect -- do you suspect the oil companies of having a lot of clout here, influence over the Republicans?

Pelosi: Of course. Yes, they rule. And that's what we'll find out.

King: They rule?

Pelosi: When we have this vote, when we really define it and where the choice is clear to the American people -- I mean, do you know what -- Exxon Mobil, their last quarter, their profits were historic. Last year, they were historic. They outdid themselves this year already in this second quarter. And they insist that we pay them to drill. They need an incentive to drill in order to make over $11 billion in one quarter. And it just doesn't make sense. We should be using that money to invest in renewable resources, tax credit for wind and solar, etc. and invest in the technologies that will develop the battery and the rest, instead of giving Big Oil more profits.

New Poll: Drilling More Important Than Environment

A story in the Washington Post says Americans aren't interested in conservation and they could care less about the environment -- about half said this. Those surveyed (?) want to drill here and drill now, even in pristine wildlife regions. I guess they think it will make gas prices lower??? Oh, the irony. 

They also want "new sources of energy," which the newspaper defines as oil but makes no mention of other sources of energy, except for nuclear and Americans aren't warm to that. The paper also doesn't offer a link to the poll or the questions. I have to think this is one of those polls intended to influence readers and the sample was polluted, so to speak. There's way too much polling going on.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans now put a priority on "finding new sources of energy" over improving conservation -- a significant shift since 2001 -- and majorities support all of the five potential federal initiatives tested in a new ABC News poll.

There is overwhelming backing for stricter fuel efficiency standards, as large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike line up behind the idea. There is also widespread support across party lines for a more controversial proposal in the battle over energy policy: offshore oil drilling.

Overall, 63 percent want the federal government to lift its embargo on new drilling in U.S. coastal waters. Nearly eight in 10 Republicans and seven in 10 independents back the idea, as do just over half of Democrats in the poll conducted in partnership with Stanford University and Planet Green.

There is a new ad out by wecansolveit.org that fights the notion that drilling is the answer. It will run during the Olympics

More Oil Money for McCain

More oil givers for McCain.

TPM: Nine of these contributions, seven from Hess executives and two from members of the Hess family, came on the same day, June 24th, the records show. The total collected in the wake of McCain's reversal for the fund, called McCain Victory 2008, from Hess execs and family is $285,000.

We were alerted to the contributions by Campaign Money Watch, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign contributions. The contributions were given a quick mention deep in a report the group issued late last week, but with no names or other details provided. The Hess contributions are clearly newsworthy on their own.

The Washington Post reported last week that campaign contributions from oil industry execs rose in a big way in the last half of June, after McCain drew a huge amount of attention by reversing his opposition on June 16th to the federal ban on offshore drilling.

Meanwhile grumpy McCain is being grumpy and hawking tire pressure gauges.

McCain's Oil Drilling Hoax

Unfortunately, issues like these are too detailed for many people. McCain says he can make gas prices go down and people get happy. But I post anyway. In hopes.
Note that the price of oil has come down significantly but gas prices haven't.

RCP The prospect of significant new petroleum resources that could be available so soon would be excellent news -- aside from the obvious impact of burning still more oil -- if only what the senator said was true. But what he said actually made no sense whatsoever, as a statement about the future development of domestic oil, the alleged need to increase drilling off our coasts or the resources that such drilling might produce. So let's unpack that McCain statement (which was overshadowed by the news that his dermatologist had just removed a small lesion from the 71-year-old melanoma survivor's right cheek).

It may be true that "existing rigs" could produce additional barrels of domestic oil immediately, whether on land or in the ocean, as Sen. McCain suggests. If so, he might want to ask his friends in the oil business why those rigs aren't producing more oil now, at prices above $120 a barrel. An existing rig by definition is a rig that is operating legally on property already leased for exploration -- and can produce oil unencumbered by any environmental constraints on drilling. In case the senator doesn't understand, an existing rig is where someone has already drilled a well.
Where companies would have to install new rigs, the question is whether a lease already exists or whether the government would have to grant a new lease. New drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf would mean new leases that are now illegal.

But as the Associated Press reported last month, nearly 75 percent of the existing leases on federal lands held by petroleum companies are currently producing no oil. Those companies today hold nearly 30 million acres dormant, according to the AP. Nobody in the federal government even knows whether any exploration has taken place over the past decade.

Did you catch the news of republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska now being accused of accepting lavish gifts from oil companies? Where do oil companies want to drill? Alaska!

Who's pushing drilling? Bush McCain. The Bush-Cheney administration was all about oil. 

Recently, oil execs gave $1 million to McCain's campaign. 

The more we continue to rely on oil, the less attention will be paid to alternative and renewable fuels. 
AP on the oil hoax
NPR on oil drilling
The Institute for Energy Research on drilling

Drilling At Home Wouldn't Solve Gas Problem

Republicans support drilling here, there, and anywhere, including precious places such as the Alaskan wildlife refuge, but there just aren't enough oil reserves in the U.S. to lower prices, according to a report on NPR this morning. I suspect those who support domestic drilling are just trying to look good to people who don't know any better or help their oil buddies and themselves.

In the short run, we can't reduce gas prices. There really is no short term solution. The solution has to be a long term one. The solution is more fuel efficient, alternative energy cars and other means of transportation.

Wouldn't it be nice not to have war over oil anymore? Just think if our energy policy had long ago required car makers to make gas-free autos by 2010. But our government didn't have the political guts.

Obama is proposing long term solutions, as opposed to McCain, who's still pitching the gas tax holiday, proven to be a gimmick during the primaries. McCain wants to let states decide on offshore drilling.

Obama on Tuesday blasted McCain for changing his stance on offshore drilling.

"John McCain's support of the moratorium on offshore drilling during his first presidential campaign was certainly laudable, but his decision to completely change his position and tell a group of Houston oil executives exactly what they wanted to hear today was the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades," he said in a statement.

"It's another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil," he said.

Obama says a windfall profits tax would ease the burden of energy costs on working families. He also wants to invest in affordable, renewable energy sources.