Dubya and McHypocrite's Oil Drilling Lies
Bush and McHypocrite, his clone, want oil drilling off the shores of the US. There are three brief articles at Campaign for America's Future on why this is so wrong and primarily yields only billions and billions more for the oil industry and grief for the environment, this country, and the American people.
Bill Scher points out: "As Sen. John McCain gears up to give a speech in Houston, repeating his call to lift the moratorium on most drilling off America's shores, MSNBC's First Read suggests, "McCain’s call for lifting the ban could ... be seen as a pragmatic, short-term solution to high energy costs that could play well in places like Michigan..."
"Pragmatic, short-term solution? Only if the media doesn't report on how little oil is off our coasts and how long it would take to get it into people's gas tanks.
"So, if lifting the moratorium on most offshore drilling has double the impact on price as lifting the ANWR ban would, that's only $1.50 off the price of crude per barrel. Combined with ANWR, it's $2.25.
"Again, by 2025. Again, little to no impact on the price at the pump, today or tomorrow.
"Not pragmatic. Not short-term. There is simply not enough oil."
Isaiah J. Poole writes: "You may have already seen the ads while surfing the Web: "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." Don't be fooled.
"But the Congress can, and should, demand more answers about why oil companies want to drill in places such as the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve when they, as Democrats such as Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., pointed out this week, haven't fully utilized 68 million acres of federal lands where they are already authorized to explore and drill."
And Terrance Heath weighs in: "...the reality is more like, "Drill Here. Wait Ten Years."
"The oil industry's own trade group says it will take seven to 10 years before we see a drop.
"And that's from the people who want to drill. Should they get their wish, there are still a few more "ifs" between the oil rig and the gas pump.
Check out this Brave New Films video.
Bill Scher points out: "As Sen. John McCain gears up to give a speech in Houston, repeating his call to lift the moratorium on most drilling off America's shores, MSNBC's First Read suggests, "McCain’s call for lifting the ban could ... be seen as a pragmatic, short-term solution to high energy costs that could play well in places like Michigan..."
"Pragmatic, short-term solution? Only if the media doesn't report on how little oil is off our coasts and how long it would take to get it into people's gas tanks.
Last month, I noted that President Bush's push to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- where an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil lie -- would only reduce the price of crude oil per barrel by about 50 cents, 17 years from now, according to Bush's own Energy Department. My colleague Isaiah just pointed me to a new Department of Energy analysis, adjusting that estimate to 75 cents.
"So, if lifting the moratorium on most offshore drilling has double the impact on price as lifting the ANWR ban would, that's only $1.50 off the price of crude per barrel. Combined with ANWR, it's $2.25.
"Again, by 2025. Again, little to no impact on the price at the pump, today or tomorrow.
"Not pragmatic. Not short-term. There is simply not enough oil."
Isaiah J. Poole writes: "You may have already seen the ads while surfing the Web: "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." Don't be fooled.
"But the Congress can, and should, demand more answers about why oil companies want to drill in places such as the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve when they, as Democrats such as Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., pointed out this week, haven't fully utilized 68 million acres of federal lands where they are already authorized to explore and drill."
And Terrance Heath weighs in: "...the reality is more like, "Drill Here. Wait Ten Years."
"The oil industry's own trade group says it will take seven to 10 years before we see a drop.
"And that's from the people who want to drill. Should they get their wish, there are still a few more "ifs" between the oil rig and the gas pump.
Even if states let drilling proceed, it would take years before new oil would flow.
First, drillers would need to clear regulatory hurdles and overcome environmental concerns.
Even if permission were granted, oil companies would have to find it worthwhile economically to drill; that's probably not a problem if prices stay high, but could be questionable if they fall again, as they did in the 1980s and '90s.
If companies found significant amounts of oil, some question whether this country has enough refining capacity to handle the new supply. The nation has slightly fewer refineries than it did in the mid-1980s
"So, if all those conditions are met, it's likely we wouldn't see the first barrel of oil until sometime around the 2016 presidential election, at the earliest. And any oil we find will probably be used up before whoever's elected president in 2016 completes his or her first term in office.
And the real reason Dubya and his clone McBush want offshore drilling: more money for their corporate crony contributor oil companies."The world consumes about 86 million barrels a day. The U.S. share of that is about 20.6 million barrels, 60 percent of them from foreign sources.
"One thousand million barrels equals 1 billion, so if there are 19 billion barrels in the areas McCain would open to drilling, that's enough to provide about 920 days, or about 2.5 years, of current U.S. consumption."
Check out this Brave New Films video.
Comments