Drill, baby drill! Obama Administration Takes a Step Toward Drilling in the Atlantic

[cali]

The Obama administration recommended on Thursday that private companies begin searching for oil and gas reserves off the Atlantic Coast, an area that has been closed to drilling for decades. More than 3 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 312 trillion cubic feet of natural gas may lie in the area, which extends from Delaware to Cape Canaveral, Florida.

Oil and gas companies have lobbied administrations since the 1980s to lease ocean tracts in the Atlantic, to little effect. The release of an environmental impact study by the Interior Department that concluded undersea seismic testing could commence is a step toward doing so, although it can’t happen before 2017; the current five-year plan for the Outer Continental Shelf keeps the Atlantic out of bounds. Oil industry groups, along with a coalition of governors from coastal states, are hoping to influence the next five-year plan as it develops, a staffer who has worked on offshore issues for Alaskan governor Sean Parnell told me on background. Practically, they’re hoping to find new reserves: nine companies have already applied for surveying permits, according to The New York Times.

“It would be really ironic if the Obama administration, which supposedly understands climate change and thus the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, was the one to open these areas,” said Steve Kretzman, the executive director of Oil Change International. The president previously green-lighted exploratory activity in the Atlantic three years ago, but scuttled the plans after the Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico in April of 2010.

The prospect of new activity in the Atlantic, even if years or decades away, raises a question that environmentalists have found themselves asking often lately: How does the administration reconcile its commitment to fighting climate change with its long standing support for expanded oil production? Obama’s approach to climate is largely focused on reducing demand for fossil fuels, by promoting investment in renewables and tightening emissions standards for power plants and motor vehicles. (If Congress could ever put a price on carbon, that also would affect demand.) The implicit assumption of Obama’s “all of the above” energy strategy is that policies intended to discourage consumption will be effective even if fossil fuels become more readily available.


<snip>

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178584/obama-administration-takes-step-toward-drilling-atlantic#

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1. Sickening.

A knife in the back. Again.

[msanthrope]

2. Why is this a knife in the back? It's science, which could be used to influence policy in a

positive way.

Are there reserves under the Atlantic? Why shouldn't we find out? Why shouldn't we survey, and discuss environmental impact at the same time under the auspices of a Democratic Administration?

Or should we wait for the 2016 election....when a possible Republican Admin could direct a very different agenda?

We lose nothing by finding out scientific fact, and by directing the course of the research.

[BBR Esq]

14. Please.

Obama wants to search for oil reserves in the Atlantic so he can direct the fight against drilling in the Atlantic?

Well done.

[msanthrope]

20. Well, the current agreement expires in 2017, and there have been no surveys for 30 years.

Should the administration direct surveys that have environmental impact controls to them, as I posted below......

Or shall we leave it to the 2016 victor?

[BBR Esq]

23. Because environmental safeguards

worked so well in the Gulf of Mexico...

Please.

[msanthrope]

37. Well, you simply haven't answered my question...the agreement expires in 2017.

And the last survey was done 30 years ago. The anti-exploration route is a hard sell. Should we allow the surveys with conditions, or leave the matter to the 2016 victor???

[BBR Esq]

44. The conditions are meaningless and you know that.

BP ignored environmmental safeguards that would have prevented what happened in the gulf. Nothing has changed.

[msanthrope]

45. No...I don't know that. nt

[Cheese4TheRat]

19. We don't need to search for it because we don't need it.

I hope you don't have to apologize to your grandchildren for being a moron when it comes to global climate change.

Good God. Even DU is polluted with deniers.

[msanthrope]

21. Perhaps we should leave the agreement for the 2016 victor, since it expires in 2017? As a homeowner

on one of the affected shores, I think I want President Obama controlling this, as opposed to leaving it for 2016....

I like the strict environmental controls outlined in the post I made below.

[XemaSab]

29. You're ignorant about how environmental law works, aren't you?

[msanthrope]

38. No. nt

[DrDan]

3. hate to say it . . . but not surprised

[msanthrope]

5. Shouldn't we survey? I think the current moratorium is a good thing, but why shouldn't we survey?nt

[msanthrope]

4. I don't like anti-science posts. I think it's smart of the Administration to plan ahead for 2017,

and set the agenda for the next five-year plan. Of course we should know if we have gas reserves....what to do with them is another matter.

Very smart of the administration to take this issue away from the Republicans.

[cali]

6. This isn't anti-science. NRDC opposes this, so do most environmental groups.

of course you're a drill, baby drill person. After all, it's dems doing it.

[msanthrope]

8. Drilling or surveying? You are conflating two different things, and that makes for a sloppy

response to the political narrative of "Drill Baby Drill."

As I noted below, I don't think drilling is the answer (particularly since I own property that would be affected), but:

1) The current agreement expires in 2017, so I support a new agreement being formulated under this administration; and

2) Surveying is not drilling, and it is smart to take the club*** out of the Republican's hands; and

3) We should know what is available. It informs the debate. I'm for knowledge.


***the club is the claim that the Obama Administration isn't doing enough about domestic oil production. Not allowing surveying only bolsters that claim, and makes it a wedge issue in the 2014 and 2016 election particularly on the issue of jobs. Since no drilling could take place until 2017 or after, it is a pretty good political strategy to allow the surveying.

As for the environmental concerns, I think an anti-science/anti-knowledge stance isn't particularly workable, especially if you allow the next (possible Repub administration) to define the 2017 agreement. We should find out what's there, while we still have a good shot at controlling it.

[cali]

9. no, i'm not. surveying is a precursor to drilling. it's often de facto

acceptance of drilling.

And if you think that Mary Landrieu is any better on these issues than a republican, think again

[msanthrope]

12. Well, one should generally not drill without a survey, that is true. But why not find out what's

there? Particularly in the light of the agreements expiring in 2017, and particularly because the last surveys were 30 years ago. I think the administration should set the agenda for the future agreement....and I don't think an anti-science, anti-exploration stance is realistic.

I don't want the Atlantic drilled, BTW. But I think the administration is being very smart in burdening any 2016 administration with the following--

The study recommends three basic rules the government should impose on the research firms that want to use seismic waves to search for oil and gas deposits: Prohibit the survey activity on the migratory routes of the endangered North Atlantic right whale, prohibit multiple seismic surveys from being conducted simultaneously, and use passive acoustic monitoring systems to identify marine mammals in the area where the surveys will be conducted.

“We’re really going to require and demand a high level of environmental performance from any operator seeking to conduct surveys in these areas,” BOEM Director Tommy Beaudreau told reporters Thursday. “They’re really going to have to up their game and use these technologies to avoid potential conflict and environmental impact.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/obama-administration-releases-environmental-study-set-rules-oil-gas-exploration-atlantic-ocean

Think about it this way, cali---who do want handling this? A Democratic administration, now, or a possible Republican one in the future?

[progressoid]

25. How about not encouraging more fossil fuel production at all.

Golly, maybe the most advanced and powerful nation on the planet could lead the world in alternatives.

Maybe this guy could help:

”With only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. A strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.”

[msanthrope]

41. I agree. But I think we have to face something here..the current agreement

runs in 2017. We haven't allowed surveys for 30 years. 2014 and 2016 loom. Do we give the Republicans a battle axe here over jobs? Or do we allow surveying with strict environmental controls and let the states start to have the debate....tourism, or possible oil jobs.

As a homeowner on an affected shore, I'm not supporting drilling...I'm for effective management of the political and environmental issues.

[XemaSab]

30. It's like a "recovering" crack addict

saying that they're going to scour the house to see if they have any more crack, not so they can DO the crack mind you, just so that they know if there's crack in the house or not.

[msanthrope]

42. I like your analogy. But..here's the thing...the crack addict might have the advantage in 2017,

than can be managed and denied now.

[JoePhilly]

40. Good effort ... sady, no one here will read the report ...

... and so no one will understand anything you just said.

Much easier to walk away thinking that the President just authorized oil drilling on the beach at Cape Hatteras.

[Divernan]

7. Do One Percenters have private islands in environmentally secure bubbles?

Huge resources of uncontaminated water? Super-duper air scrubbers? Dairy, meat & eggs raised without hormones/contaminated feed? Grains, fruits and veggies guaranteed NOT genetically modified by Monsanto? We know they've already got the private security guards in place.

Where the hell/in what world do they think their children and grandchildren will be living?

[Scuba]

11. The Koch's children are very fortunate. They were never born.

[Divernan]

13. Well that would explain a helluva lot, but they both do have kids.

[Scuba]

18. They do? Well, I feel sorry for them.

[zeemike]

22. I don't think most sociopaths give it a thought.

It is all about self interest, and future generations does not interest them because it is not about them.

[freshwest]

36. Actually, they do, and always have. Example, European royalty. The places that plebs can't visit.

It's up to us to keep the rest of the living area sustainable. But too many people are hell bent on taking it all now, acting like it doesn't matter, and that's the fault of the plebs.

We are not all victims of the 1%, but we (not talking about DU or those who change their lives to reduce footprints) are complicit in this and no one can stop us.

The 1% can't make us decide to join cults that insist on having a dozen kids by two parents or more, doesn't make us buy gas guzzlers, doesn't make us go about and shoot everything in sight for target practice and consume the Earth's gifts like tapeworms.

What control we have, we must exert on our own lives, and try to convince others, as we are the majority and use up more resources than the entire 1% ever could, to keep our living space working for us.

We have to take the bad with the good and work with each other to save ourselves. The fingerpointing won't change what we holding the fingers are doing.

And that's not a statement about you, not personal. It's just the realization I think we need to comprehend to make things work out. And there are so many people who simply don't care about it.

[jsr]

10. Meanwhile the corporate liability for economic damages remains at $75 million

[QC]

15. You just want Sarah Palin!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

16. Why do they have to look in the ocean? Just keep drilling on land, it's not

nearly as dangerous and it's lots easier to contain a spill or other disaster.

[tclambert]

17. Yet people stopped offshore windmills because they felt the windmills would ruin the view.

Those ugly, ugly windmills vs. handsome, manly offshore drilling rigs. One oil spill affecting the Hamptons, or Kennebunkport, or Nantucket will . . . naw, probably won't stop it. They'll just make sure to build the rigs far from beachfront property owned by oil company executives.

[KoKo]

46. Interesting Point...isn't it... Depends on one's VIEW from the Mansion..I guess. n/t

[evilhime]

24. Who did I vote for

and support? Because from all the recent actions and promises not kept I cannot feel this is what I voted for or supported. From the TPP and nominations that are from the industries they are supposed to regulate, to catering to the petroleum industry more than renewables, to still being in Afghanistan, to a host of other disappointing decisions and poorly done negotiations ... does anyone else think this is not what we were looking for? Yet 30 or more times a day I get emails asking for political hand-outs .

[ladjf]

26. Do we have anyone in the Obama Administration that has any sense? nt

[bigwillq]

48. No (nt)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Well, we know that the energy companies aren't exploring because they want to drill...

they're doing it for the sake of "science" and protecting the environment and to keep the Republicans from drilling.

At least, that's what some DUers claim to believe.

[cali]

28. it's like parody- but they're serious. love for President Obama

certainly is effective tinting for glasses.

[brooklynite]

31. Please point to the President's campaign pledge to stop drilling for oil...

We can make progress on alternative fuels, but we'll still be dependent on petroleum-based energy for the foreseeable future.

[cali]

33. that is irrelevant. that he didn't make such a promise is hardly

evidence that the wild increase in drilling is a good thing.

Yes, we're still dependent on fossil fuels. that doesn't mean that big gas and oil should operate virtually without impunity and with the blessing of the administration.

[freshwest]

39. Thanks for the honest statement there. Our nation was built on dirty energy and it's going to take

time to get off of it. There are some areas of modern life that will require fossil fuels for a long time to come. Reality sucks at time, but you can't change it if you don't first take an honest look and work with what you have. No easy road, except in the imagination.

[lumpy]

43. That is the reality of the oil story in the US, without oil our lives would change dramatically.

[KoKo]

32. Should go to the DU Greatest Page!

We didn't vote for this...We are Democrats who recognize Climate Change and this wasn't what we thought it would be when we rejected "Drill Baby Drill" and "Bain Capital."

It's very distressing.

[cali]

34. but President Obama didn't promise not to expand drilling!

[KoKo]

35. We didn't get it in writing...

Even if we did it would be said by some that we "forged it." Videos we have of promises he made are said to be not what we can see him saying. It's said that we didn't listen or view the speeches carefully enough to parse his real "intent."

[woo me with science]

47. kick