The House has voted to allow oil drilling off the nation's Atlantic and Pacific coasts if states agree — but only 50 or more miles out. Republicans called the bill a ruse, saying that's well beyond where most of the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil is located.


The Democratic bill also would:

• Roll back $18 billion in tax breaks for the five largest oil companies and requires energy companies to pay billions of dollars in royalties avoided because of an Interior Department contracting error.

_Require the release of oil from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try to push down gasoline prices.

_Make it a federal crime for oil companies holding federal leases to provide gifts to government employees, a response to a recent sex and drug scandal involving the federal office that oversees the offshore oil royalty program and energy company employees.

_Provide tax credits for wind and solar energy industries, the development of cellulose ethanol and other biofuels.

_Require utilities nationwide to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind or other alternative energy source.

_Give tax breaks for new energy efficiency programs including the use of improved building codes and for companies that promote their employees use of bicycles for commuting.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/offshore_drilling



We can expect this to go back and forth for a long long time. I would say a year or so even before the possibility of any drilling.

So, what are the chances of anything getting though the president? I'm guessing:


Through Bush
Must have full retraction of drilling ban up to 12 miles from shore.
Must not take out any tax breaks from oil companies.


Through Obama
Must have 50 mile restriction and state approval
Must take away tax breaks for the oil companies.

Through McCain
Same as Bush. Same people giving funding.



How about a compromise so we can get going:

Open up the land with the highest expected oil reserves - this would shut up the Republicans.

Open up the land on a time based schedule. We don't have the drilling rigs to drill everything anyway. Why not open up just what we can drill? This would shut up the Democrats.

Give profits to the states. Why else would they open up? This would shut up the Republicans. This is simply logical.

Keep in the Solar and Wind incentives. This is our future and we need to find alternatives to oil. We are at a global plateau and it's only going to get more expensive to extract each barrel. We might not need it next year but 10 years from now it will be needed. The Republicans have to shut up or the public will eat them alive. This just makes logical sense.


Any other ideas as to how we can actually get something moving forward so we can concentrate on the real issues - getting off of oil.

The only reason why the existing companies DON'T want to drill more from their existing productive oil fields BUT WANT to drill offshore is TO HAVE MORE HOLDINGS OF OIL, so that they will maximize profit as long as possible.

They just want to have more reserves claimed but still trickle the flow of oil to control the prices to maximize their profit.

Maybe you should look through the bill before you write it off...


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110CnqX2n:e289352:


That's the part about the $5000 credit for the first 60,000 owners of the Chevy Volt!

Texas: If you think the Republicans would go for the states getting any part of the profit from this oil, you haven't been paying attention. They'll want the oil companies to keep all those profits so W and Dick and all their buddies will stay rich. Most of the guys talking about those "sound fundamentals of the economy" while the stock market tanks and banks go under are multi-millionaires, if you haven't noticed.

Of course the rational course of action is a meaningful compromise... which almost guarantees there won't be a meaningful compromise in Congress, and certainly not between Congress and the current oil CEOs..er... administration.

Gearheadgeek, you seem to know a lot about machines and tech. but your not to up on politics, your not listening to Sarah whom in Alaska got money from big oil to the people -----------NO PLUG NO SALE-----

Gearheadgeek, you seem to know a lot about machines and tech. but your not to up on politics, your not listening to Sarah whom in Alaska got money from big oil to the people -----------NO PLUG NO SALE-----

Oh, I've been listening to Sarah Palin. She's the one itching to start WWIII with the Russians to usher in the end times (check our her church... google "third wave" theology and/or "new apostolic reformation".) The money she used to pay off Alaskans to love her (smells like those debt-funded checks we've been getting from W, no?) is money that should have been used to pay for projects that were instead paid by federal earmarks she pretends not to have requested or received, assisted by her good buddy Ted Stevens... he of the ethical problems with corporate donors doing free work on his house that he failed to mention in financial disclosures.

Don't just listen to what she says in speeches, do a little research. I don't think Obama is all sweetness and light, but he and Motormouth Joe are a damned sight less scary than pretty little Sarah Palin.

Hi gearheadgeek, you do seem to be paying attention but I think you are getting your information from all the wrong places if you watch Fox cable news and a little of CNN instead of Google blogs you might get a better view of whats really going on. But I do appreciate the way your brain works your are doing a great job-----NO PLUG NO SALE----------

Hi gearheadgeek, you do seem to be paying attention but I think you are getting your information from all the wrong places if you watch Fox cable news and a little of CNN instead of Google blogs you might get a better view of whats really going on. But I do appreciate the way your brain works your are doing a great job-----NO PLUG NO SALE----------

Hahaha, oh boy. It saddens me that you place so much trust in Fox and CNN, the two very worst cable networks out there. What they do is not anything close to journalism, it's all profit-driven loudmouthed punditry. And in the case of Fox News, they get all their talking points straight from the same Republican strategists who write Bush's press releases.

It's healthy to be critical of the blogs, but where is your critical thinking when it comes to the cable networks?

I wasn't trying to say CNN and Fox were the only thing to watch just not only Google, -----NO PLUG NO SALE---

Hi gearheadgeek, you do seem to be paying attention but I think you are getting your information from all the wrong places if you watch Fox cable news and a little of CNN instead of Google blogs you might get a better view of whats really going on. But I do appreciate the way your brain works your are doing a great job-----NO PLUG NO SALE----------

Google proper is good for looking up specifics about topics one finds referenced in all sorts of media. If I told you to check the Huffington Post, you could assume I'm significantly "lefty" with some degree of safety...

Google News is a good source for news because it's an aggregation of all sorts of sources, from newspapers and television stations and networks to wire services and extremist "news" sites leaning left, right, and far-out Libertarian as well.

Personally, I would call myself a Libertarian if there weren't an actual Libertarian party that's a bit wacky. I'm generally VERY conservative fiscally and a strong supporter of privacy and property rights (so by definition I despise W's "administration" of the last 7.5 years... he was a lousy governor for us here in Texas and he's been worse as president.) There isn't a viable candidate I can say really represents me, so it's a "least bad" situation. I would vote for the McCain of 2000 in a heartbeat... had I been in the country at the time of the primaries I would've voted for him in the Republican primary that year (in Texas the only declaration of affiliation is the primary in which you choose to vote.) He was already a non-starter by the time the TX primary rolled around in '00, his candidacy having been ruined by Rove and his lying stooges (many of whom have gone to work for the McCain campaign this year... hmmm.) I did go to the consulate to vote against Bush, however... as I said I had seen his work in Texas an wasn't impressed...I held my nose and voted for Gore as the lesser of two evils, and I think W has proven me right.

I voted for Bush 41 both times. I think he was a decent president... not great, but no real missteps, and one of the smartest decisions he made was to stop at the Iraqi border after ridding Kuwait of Saddam's scum... W should have learned more from Dad.

Sarah Palin is scary, she's deceptive, she reminds me of a cross between Cheney and Bush 43. I don't want her anywhere near the White House.

Google proper is good for looking up specifics about topics one finds referenced in all sorts of media. If I told you to check the Huffington Post, you could assume I'm significantly "lefty" with some degree of safety...

Google News is a good source for news because it's an aggregation of all sorts of sources, from newspapers and television stations and networks to wire services and extremist "news" sites leaning left, right, and far-out Libertarian as well.

Personally, I would call myself a Libertarian if there weren't an actual Libertarian party that's a bit wacky. I'm generally VERY conservative fiscally and a strong supporter of privacy and property rights (so by definition I despise W's "administration" of the last 7.5 years... he was a lousy governor for us here in Texas and he's been worse as president.) There isn't a viable candidate I can say really represents me, so it's a "least bad" situation. I would vote for the McCain of 2000 in a heartbeat... had I been in the country at the time of the primaries I would've voted for him in the Republican primary that year (in Texas the only declaration of affiliation is the primary in which you choose to vote.) He was already a non-starter by the time the TX primary rolled around in '00, his candidacy having been ruined by Rove and his lying stooges (many of whom have gone to work for the McCain campaign this year... hmmm.) I did go to the consulate to vote against Bush, however... as I said I had seen his work in Texas an wasn't impressed...I held my nose and voted for Gore as the lesser of two evils, and I think W has proven me right.

I voted for Bush 41 both times. I think he was a decent president... not great, but no real missteps, and one of the smartest decisions he made was to stop at the Iraqi border after ridding Kuwait of Saddam's scum... W should have learned more from Dad.

Sarah Palin is scary, she's deceptive, she reminds me of a cross between Cheney and Bush 43. I don't want her anywhere near the White House.

It's refreshing to see such intellectual honesty and understanding of current events from someone who calls themselves a libertarian. It shows that no matter your political or philosophical beliefs, you have to actually pay attention to make a good decision on election day. So many people buy into the narratives that are gagged out by the cable networks without really looking into actually going on.

Texas, I think you have it pretty dead on. I really hope the democrats get control of the white house and a larger majority in the senate so that compromising with the braindead oil industry talking heads known as the republicans isn't needed on every single bill.

Note: I'm not for any party because I feel it would taint my objectivity.

I'm very worried that the Republicans have too much conflict of interest to guide this county needs to go. I think we can all agree that that oil and the Republicans are one. Now, some may say that's a good thing because oil is important and will remain so for many decades. Others may say that being too close will make it impossible to make the right decisions needed to get us moving away from this depleting and unstable non-renewable resource.

If the Republicans win this time then I think it will be a long and painful wait for the next election - when the oil problem will be even more obvious. The strategies they will use for the next four years will not help our country. I don't even want to watch it. It will be like watching a train wreck.

The Democrats are positioned well this time around because they are so anti-oil. We really need to hit alternatives now, just like the rest of the developed world is doing. We must lead this charge because we are the most able to do so. We will also benefit the most if we lead the charge.

Additionally, the world absolutely hates us and our current policies. A clean change is needed just to start the healing process. This is a huge deal as we will need to work with all of the other nations of the world to get though this most difficult time. A time where our energy supply is not increasing like it did for the last 100 plus years. The only way right now for our economies to move forward is though efficiency gains. Economies and populations follow energy. Since OPEC is cutting production you can only imagine what next year is going to be like - having less global oil supply then this year.

I really hate to see the US struggling so badly right now. Massive reforms are needed, mostly in our energy policies. Like they say, "Sometimes you need to try something else, even if it's the wrong thing to do." We are definitely at that point.

Unfortunately, the solution is not simple. Our monetary system is so tied up in the petrol dollar that getting out is going to be tricky. I feel the best way is to come up with a great plan. A plan that is worked out with many nations (because they are so intertwined). As long as the world knows where we are headed and we move there in a slow but steady pace others can adapt and disruptions can be kept to a minimum.

This change would be the transition away from petroleum for transportation. This would be followed by the transition away from petroleum for electricity (the US only has a tiny percentage). Finally there would need to be the transition away from petroleum for all of the petrolchemicals the world relies on.

Perhaps the world is just not ready for this massive change. Peak oil has not happened (or is not recognized) and the real pain has not been felt that high up on the ladder. Maybe a Republican in the office will happen and that the real energy crisis will unfold over the next four years. Maybe it doesn't matter who is in the office because the partisan politics will prevent any coordinated plan and that a collapse must happen first. Who knows. We can do it or have it done to us. I think it's being done to us right now.

I didn't mean to imply blanket support for the Democrats. Like you say, it's obvious that they're the only hope for the US when faced with another neocon presidency, but it's still a lesser of two evils scenario. The world is still heading towards a crisis no matter who gets into the white house, but I think it's pretty clear which party would drive us right off the precipice and which one would at least attempt to change direction.

Yeah, it's been said already, but if you think it will shut Republicans up to give oil $ to the state, your nuts. They want to hog 99% of it to themselves and then give X% through lobbyists and campaign donations to the Rebublican party. That shuts them up!