Webb and Warner fail to deliver on offshore drilling
By JR Hoeft | Thursday, May 19th, 2011 | PolicyBoth Senators Jim Webb and Mark Warner voted against cloture for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s offshore drilling plan, which would have allowed lease sales off the coast of Virginia to go forward.
This is not surprising given what Kevin Hall, Warner’s spokesman, told Bearing Drift recently:
“Senator Warner supports expanded domestic energy production, including off of Virginia’s coast. Right now we’re looking at Sen. McConnell’s proposal to see what provision, if any, it might make for incorporating lessons we may have learned from the Gulf oil spill. Sen. Warner also believes any drilling off of Virginia’s coast should include revenue sharing.”
Additionally, Senator Webb told the Washington Post:
“I have long advocated opening up more of the nation’s outer continental shelf resources to responsible natural gas and oil exploration,” Webb said. “However, states deserve fair access to their own oil and gas reserves and an equitable share of any revenues from the sale of their offshore resources.”
Both Senators also voted the day before to target only the oil and natural gas industry by eliminating deductions taken on costs by all industry. Cloture also failed there.
I asked both House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling whether, despite our senators rhetoric of support for drilling offshore that their actions are to the detriment of Virginia being able to move forward on domestic energy production:
The president announced earlier this week that seismic research off the coast could move forward.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
48 Responses to "Webb and Warner fail to deliver on offshore drilling"
This is a fantastic opportunity for George Allen in the upcoming Senate election. Allen, who is fantastic on energy, has the perfect opportunity to show how Democrats, Kaine and Webb in particular, are against the best interests of Virginians, and all Americans. With the price of gas going up and up, and Drill Baby Drill back in the headlines, Allen should wipe the floor with Kaine, who asked that the oil lease sales be delayed, as he was on his way out of the door from the Governors office, and headed to his new gig as DNC Chair. Hopefully Allen will take this gift from the Democrats and run with it.
Well J.R., no doubt where you stand, but I wonder why you would expose us to the risk of extensive damage to our natural resources, which could cripple our tourism industry, our fishing industry, and earn the enmity of the U.S. Navy, and in return earn no royalties, and acknowldge the map which is prejudicial to our interests. Seems to me that despite your comments, both Senator Webb and Warner actually did vote in our interest. How can you and others push for access for international oil companies to exploit natural resources for their gain while providing nothing back to Virginians in return?
One republican thumbs up to both Warner and Webb on this vote. Position is reasonable and responsible and protects Virginia’s interests.
And again, oil industry reports show the total amount of oil/gas off VA coastline isn’t anywhere near enough to move gasoline prices one fraction of one penny today, or at anytime in the future.
If we are going to have offshore drilling VA should get the same revenue sharing that Alaska gets. Without revenue sharing, drilling should be opposed. Kudos to Webb and Warner.
Folks,
Don’t kid yourselves. If these issues are resolved they will think up new excuses. Obama and the Dems are on record repeatedly that they are opposed to oil and gas drilling in the US, they want high energy prices and they want to spend all kinds of money on infeasible alternative energy products (made in China). I am just quoting them so no hate mail please. PS Pony up a contribution for a waiver.
Valentinus, you’re probably right about “excuses”. That said, these sound like good ones. How about we secure fair royalties for Virginia and then push forward? Our senators & representatives should insist on fairness for Virginia. Like Hampton Roads should insist on fairness at the state level.
I agree with Britt. Until the issue of royalties for Virginia is addressed, I want my Senators to vote against opening up Virginia’s coastal areas for drilling. Why should we write a blank check to the oil industry to come in and exploit our resources, possibly endangering the state’s tourism industry, without paying the state royalties? Republicans often say that government should operate more like a business. Well, to give away a potentially lucrative resource for nothing is really bad business. And, if there is signifcant oil off the coast and drilling is eventually allowed, I think the citizens of Virginia, like those in the People’s Republic of Alaska, deserve a yearly cut.
Wow. I never thought I’d see so many people clamor for tax revenue so quickly.
That’s all you’re saying. Thanks for exposing yourselves.
That being said, where’s Warner’s or Webb’s bill to make it happen?
Bottom-line: I’d rather America be energy independent than to be held up because Virginia doesn’t get tax revenues.
Well J.R., as you said, thanks for exposing your priority. Oil for international conglomerates to sell at a profit on the international oil market, and nothing for us except the risk of disaster.
JR: It’s not tax revenue at all.
It’s private industry paying for the right to exploit a natural resource that belongs to the public, not to them.
So, I never thought I’d see you turn into a shill for the oil industry to fast. That’s all you’re saying. Thanks for exposing yourself.
Bottom line: Those resources belong to the people of Virginia. Not Exxon. Not BP. They belong to us. The fact that you want to give them away to some of the largest, most profitable companies in the world speaks volumes.
You’re a moron, Mike. The royalty bill is being carried by Bob Goodlatte.
But, in plain speak, if Virginia gets thousands of jobs, a sustainable industry that at least has to pay property taxes, and an infusion of private capital to our economy, I’ll take it.
Most importantly, we are improving our domestic energy resources.
Hell, some of those workers might even take light rail in Virginia Beach. If it ever gets built – but it seems you guys don’t have a broad enough tax base for it. Might be nice if there were a rather large oil company out at the beach to help with its development.
That’s a hell of a way to look at it, Steve. So, how much capital you think it takes to build an oil rig? If it’s as easy as you say, why don’t you do the investment? So why do so many states rely on investing in energy for their pension funds, if it already is the “people’s” money. Glad to know that living off the land is social. I guess it’s all the people’s corn too.
JR – if you really want energy independence, then you might want to push for greater investments into alternative fuels & energy sources AND push oil companies to fix EXISTING rigs/wells and open up the beaucoup wells shut down after Katrina damage. Question: Why aren’t they drilling more in the oil rich Gulf reserves already under lease to oil companies ?
Heck of a lot more bang for the buck in the Gulf than the tiny amount off VA’s coastline.
Sorry, can’t be a republican water boy on this issue. It’s a bad idea and a bad move for Virginia (and our neighbors). And there are no “thousands of jobs” to be had, according to the oil industry’s own reports. It’s a ruse.
JR: While not impressed with Steve’s rhetoric or reasoning skills, as another Virginian, I can’t argue with his advocacy for being an opportunist.
Jay D: From my understanding, rigs have left the Gulf. Apparently, the number of rotary rigs drilling are now half. They can’t sit while Obama stalls.
No need to get snippy. Just carrying a bill is a bit premature to have claimed victory, isn’t? And if it passed, Virginia gets totally short changed by the map, which is one of the reasons Webb and Warner voted against it. And as to jobs, frankly, who knows how many jobs would be associated with a rig off shore, but one thing I do know; that is, if the Navy continues its objections, we stand to lose billions of dollars here in Hampton Roads. Perhaps you should consider that number. Trying to score political points instead of thoughtfully considering a complex issue should be beyond you.
JR-Farmers who grow corn bought the land. It’s their land and thus their resource. The off-shore resource areas do not belong to the oil companies, they haven’t bought them. They, and the resources they contain, belong to the taxpayers. You want to give away the taxpayers’ property for free. If investing in the technology to extract the resources, once they buy the rights to do so, is too much of a burden on the poor deprived oil companies then they won’t do it.
Using your logic, BP can come set up a rig and drill for oil in your backyard without paying you a dime and if they hit something, they don’t owe you a thing then either. And if they don’t find anything, the just mess up your yard, well you’re on the hook for that too. It isn’t their responsibility.
I get the arguments for accepting a deal that short changes Virginia.
We lose very valuable time. Getting new energy flowing and economic benefits to Virginia from what jobs come and taxes on property built ON LAND. Adding even a modest amount of energy and reversing this trend of energy strangulation is a good thing.
Corn is taxed, JR. The land being used is taxed. Sure any HQ, warehouse, or disstribution center will be subect to property tax, but the land the “corn” is on WILL NOT. Not only will we not get the benefit from state resources it damages Virginia, much the same as a corporate farm company would damage by raising corn on huge portions of land and only be taxed on buildings & new houses. Shipping lanes might be affected, the Navy might object. That resource has value beyond adding new energy. Virginia should be compensated as they are compensated in other arenas.
I get the purist “take the high road” argument saying Alaska be damned, we should lead by example. Unfortunately, peace through strength works and appealing to fairness is a path to being preyed upon. Foreign policy, transportation money for Hampton Roads, or this…….
It is much easier to agree to drop yourf royalties if Alaska does, if you have it to start with. Othedrwise, Alaska in effect is stealing and you got played. Much like Hampton Roads gets taken for a ride by the rest of the state.
JR, one major reason oil companies are leaving is that much of the easily reached Gulf of Mexico oil reserves have already been drilled and new prospects (for cheaper shallow drilling) are being discovered off Africa, the Middle East, and China. In essence, they came, they tapped, and now the leave behind a mess.
According to a July 2010 AP investigation, “about 50,000 oil wells have been drilled in the Gulf over the past six decades, with about 23,500 permanently abandoned … More than 27,000 abandoned oil and gas wells lurk beneath the Gulf of Mexico, and more than 1,000 oil rigs and platforms sit idle. … many of the wells have been ignored for decades, with no one checking for leaks.”
These old wells DO leak oil, yet none create jobs or produce energy resources. Are we sure we want that for Virginia’s future? What/how much are you willing to risk for a few hundred jobs? Oil leaks and spills do happen.
- What is the job/ economic impact if we have to shut down ports?
- What is the job/ economic impact if we have to move ships and naval facilities?
- What is the job/ economic impact if we have to shut down shipyards?
- What is the job/ economic impact if we have to shut down fishing areas?
- What is the job/ economic impact if our estuaries are damaged?
- What is the job/ economic impact if we loose 1/4 or 1/2 of yearly tourism revenue?
I think you all are missing the point.
The bottom-line is that I really agree that Virginia should get royalties here, but I have seen precious little action on the part of our Democratic senators.
If they actually DID something regarding these proposals – even offering up amendments – I’d take them more seriously.
SteveV is correct. The land might be off our shores, but the Fed sells the rights to drill – not Virginia. On jobs … absolutely no guarantee that any new jobs will be VA jobs; experienced oil riggers travel the globe and Baltimore or NJ would be just as likely to be a base of operations as would any city in Virginia. In fact, with NJ’s refining capacity (8 times that of VA’s) … where would YOU plant your operations?
And without jobs, WHERE is the promised tax revenue?
JR – I absolutely get your point. And I agree this is a political stall tactic; Webb/Warner have no intentions of ever supporting VA offshore drilling (a position I obviously agree with). OTOH, I’d be much more open to the idea IF Republicans offered up real data, instead of empty promises and rhetoric. Would love to have the Gov. Bob explain how he got that ‘thousands’ figure.
I totally agree with you on that, JR. Webb & Warner have not helped in that regard at all. I even stated that that was likely just an excuse.
Again, though, you just can’t accept a bad deal for Virginia. Especially when later, the Democrats later will just argue that you put Virginia at risk environmentally, commercially, and scared off the Navy and “you didn’t even get royalties for Virginia.” Then they’ll just make fun of Sarah Palin and paint Va Republicans as worse by comparison.
Let’s also face the idea that we might lose some military assets in the future anyway. Let’s also ackowledge the possibility that ANY loss of Navy might be painted unfairly as a result of any misgivings they might have about oil rigs and not the true root cause. Whatever it might be.
Britt,
I am afraid that I don’t understand your assertion that the Navy might relocate assets from Hampton Roads because of oil rigs. Oil rigs or not, the Virginia Congressional delegation seems to be perfectly capable of dictating to the Navy where they can and cannot locate their carrier groups. You seem to think that the Navy can make decisions that are in the best interest of national security despite parochial political interests.
Lol, we’re not on the same page. Mostly my fault. Hit & run blogging….
What I am saying is that we are already losing assets for other reasons. JFCOM, etc and it may well be that with cuts or deals made between the Federal government & Florida, we could lose an aircraft carrier. We could face losses due to pure cut backs. They won’t be because of oil………probably.
My point is if Gov. McDonnell brought in the oil industry , but we lost military assets for ANY reason, the Dems could say that objections by the Navy to the oil rigs really soured them to this area and plays a big part in the losses. That leads to the argument that we couldn’t get a fair deal on oil like the other states PLUS Virginia was harmed by the loss of military. If the oil play doesn’t pan out, it will just make the ridicule that much more severe.
Interesting discussion, and quite telling of what some think are rational arguments.
For those upholding the Navy argument, hasn’t Sec. Gates already slated JFCOM in Norfolf for closure? Don’t know where that stands currently, but the Obama administration doesn’t give a hoot about the legality of laws with respect to base closure. I’ve read that 2,300 jobs will be lost with that decision.
The Southern Environmental Law Center (the environazis) are thrilled with Webb and Warner’s votes. It sounds as though some of you have some connection to the SELC. They have been fighting against drilling off the Virginia coasts forever.
Back in Jan. of this year, both Warner and Webb wrote a letter to Salazar asking that the moratorium on drilling be lifted from VA. They clearly stated that their reason was to “create jobs in the state, and to provide another source of domestic energy.” Never said a word about revenue sharing. NOT A WORD. The House passed bill, which didn’t include revenue sharing for VA, or elsewhere, said that the Republicans can come back to include revenue sharing. That can happen if we look to electing those that will fight for our best interests, and getting rid of the dead Washington Republican wood. That is critical.
I am not so sure that Warner and Webb voted as they did because of the revenue sharing argument. They both have been very reliable Reid/Obama votes on all major legislation. There is no question that they have both bought the Liberal renewable energy initiative. Renewable energy goals are still very heavily subsidized by the federal government, all while wanting to stop the oil company tax breaks, which are the same tax breaks that are utilized by many other industries. GE, for one, used the tax breaks which resulted in their paying no federal taxes.
Speaking of GE, they are very very big time into producing Wind Turbines, and Jeff Imelt sits at the right hand of Obama. GE still has not come up with cost effective, adequate amounts of energy from their newest models. They just take American tax dollars for a still unproven, inadequate source. They are counting on Obama’s largesse for a still unworkable solution to energy needs.
It may be that Webb and Warner voted as they did because there are now 2 companies in VA that are pushing for Wind Energy off the VA coasts.
http://www.rechargenews.com/energy/wind/article207430.ece
Please note in the article where the author states that “it is not clear if offshore wind energy developers will need to submit costly environmental reviews as a part of the permitting process.” So, the oil companies would have to go through extensive and ungodly reviews, but for wind energy, not so much. Hey, it’s the environmentalists that rule the roast, right.
In another article I read, the Navy has stated that they want to get at least half of their onshore energy by renewable sources by 2025.
So, the Navy has a problem with oil rigs off VA coasts, 50 miles off, but they don’t have a problem with an unlikely source of energy with wind turbines dotting the same waters, which would cause as much a problem for the Naval exercises in those waters. And, in the end, it may not matter what the Navy wants, as Gates has already slated the Norfolk JFCOM for closing.
No oil company, large or small, will commit to leasing the offshore area in VA without first exploring to determine just how much oil and gas will be there, so the “there isn’t enough there arguments are false or excuses.” Those arguing that it will ruin tourism are disingenious. A wind turbine farm will be much more distracting, ugly, inefficient, and a waste of government money subsidies. It will create no long term jobs, except for having to replace them every few years because of the harsh sea climate eating them away. They will produce diddly squat, and may keep a light bulb burning as long as the wind blows. Otherwise, stock up on candles and wood for your woodtoves. That is before they are banned.
Yes Britt Howard, if I understand you correctly, VA stands to lose the military base, plus the oil drilling issue. But, if I read it correctly, according to the Democrat Senators, and Kaine’s support of delaying any drilling permits off VA coasts, we may gain a wind energy farm off the coasts. Ain’t that the real deal?
Allen needs to “drill” Webb and Kaine on their harm to VA in terms of lost jobs, and their support of an unworkable renewable energy policy.
Again, to be clear, I think everyone has already written off JFCOM. I only brought that up as an example of a trend to losing assets. Dems might attempt to blame future losses unfairly on oil rigs and damage Republicans supporting it.
I agree if wind farms are ok, so are oil rigs. The bias is obvious. I am in no way defending Webb or Warner. Due to Obama care, I will never vote for either one of them. I am only saying that what they are using as excuses “revenue sharing” now, makes a lot of sense. Do I think they would just find another excuse once that politically expedient one was no longer valid? Erm……..you betcha!
You also bring up good points, Sandy, but Virginians and the GOP need to move carefully. There are a lot of pitfalls in certain scenarios.
Even if it is a small amount of oil/gas, I favor it. More supply is better. I do one day hope for cheap & reliable alternatives, but oil is still king. We need to be realistic and live in today’s world. We also need to demand fair treatment for. Virginia. Why support any question of fairness for any other state if Vrginia is not given a seat at the table?
I don’t defend Webb/Warner, only this particular vote that has real merit. Merit whether they really mean it or not.
SandyMay: “No oil company, large or small, will commit to leasing the offshore area in VA without first exploring to determine just how much oil and gas will be there, so the “there isn’t enough there arguments are false or excuses.” Those arguing that it will ruin tourism are disingenious.” SM, is this one of those because-you-believe-it, it-must-be-true statements, or do you have real data to back it up? The geological studies are done; oil companies already know how much oil is offshore, where it sits, and how deep they need to drill. I’ve posted this link before; if you really want to know amounts, go here: http://www.api.org/Newsroom/icf_study.cfm and scroll down to the bottom of the page to the state level analysis.
Come on guys – am I the only BD reader to open up a business/econ book or attend B-school? Set aside the political for one moment and just use logic.
- Oil companies are international corporate entities with an allegiance to (and responsibility for) increasing profits & shareholder value. They drill where they can get the most oil – for the least cost. Drilling runs over $600K per day and before the first barrel is out of the ground on one well, a million bucks has been spent.
Once above ground, crude is sold at market price… no discounts offered because Americans want/need cheaper gasoline. It’s not evil; it’s simply business.
At risk of belaboring the point, the amount of oil contained in currently prohibited offshore areas is so small that not only will it be at least ten years before it makes it into the domestic oil supply, it will only add 250,000 barrels (total) a day to a current daily demand of 21 million barrels. Even if offshore and ANWR are fully exploited–the U.S. will still have to import the vast majority of its petroleum. Neither will have any significant impact on reducing oil prices or in increasing U.S. energy independence. Look, if you want to simply make more money pumping oil from these areas, at least be honest about it. But don’t keep feeding us the line that prohibitions on where oil companies can drill is the reason we import so much energy or the reason gasoline prices are high.
“When questioned by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) about the value of lifting the moratorium on drilling of the East and West coasts of the United States, [T. Boone] Pickens responded, I’m not a big believer. I think you’re going to get a rude awakening as to the value of the East and West coasts when it’s opened up and when it’s put up for sale… I think you’ll be surprised at the price you get for the tracts. Pickens was politely relating to Domenici a cold hard fact — the offshore oil reserves of the United States lie predominantly in areas already open to drilling. The Gulf Coast and Alaskan shores, not the California or Eastern seaboard, have the great majority of remaining reserves:…” http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/07/22/pickens-rude-awakening/
If protecting Virginia’s economic security makes me an “enviro-nazi” … so be it. And I guess T. Boone and Chris Christie are pretty good company.
Jay D – who can, or would, argue your facts….with one exception: it’s based on antiquated data. They also thought there was hardly any oil to be found deep offshore in the gulf – we now know that was an inaccurate assessment.
We’re basing our theory of how much (or how little, depending on your persuasion) is out there on data that comes from the time of 8 track cassettes and the first Atari. I think we can do better and learn more.
At least the president is allowing that testing to be “sped up”.
Yes Jay D, your info is very outdated. T. Boone, at one time was into wind energy, but he found out how bad of an investment it really is. Probably shortly after the 2008 article you linked, T Boone had 500 wind turbines sitting in his garage, waiting for someone to buy them. They were still in their wrappers, with the tags still attached. Don’t know if he found a buyer or not, but, I suspect Christie may have bought them for his wind farm project off the NJ coast.
Christie is an environmentalist, and has been heavily supported by the environazi’s in NJ. He loves getting as much federal money as he can. Read the reports on just how much energy is projected to be produced by his wind farm. Not very much, and it still has to be backed up by the nasty fossil fuels the enviro’s hate. All NJ residents will be mandated to get at least part of their energy from the wind project. And, someone has to pay for the project, and maintain it, besides the feds, and the NJ residents will have to kick in a great amount of dollars whether they want it or not. It will hurt small businesses the most, which NJ can hardly afford to lose, but they will, as they have said. Christie was looking for someone to open a wind turbine manufacturing plant in his state, in order to create green jobs. The jobs it creates will never keep up with the number of jobs that will be lost due to his environmentalism. He is saving money with the Teachers Union, but turning around and committing it to his wind farm.
If you think you are in good company with T Boone and Christie, that’s all that needs to be said.
In some respects, JR’s response and those who are in strict agreement with him on the “drill baby drill” end of the spectrum reveal much about the upcoming electoral cycle. Their extremism, and condemnation of anyone who has a nuanced, informed opinion, will be their undoing. Frankly, I think citizens are finally beginning to realize that Grover Norquist is really in charge, and that is a sickening prospect for most Americans.
Wind turbines sale priced at $36,500.00
http://www.usasolarwind.com/
Anyone know of a wind farm closer then West Virginia? I want to actually visit one to find out about the noise they make.
On the subject of royalties: It is not like the oil companies are going to escape without paying royalties, the point of contention is whether Virginia would get a share of the royalties paid to the federal government.
Personally, if the reason that Webb and Warner did not vote for cloture was to hold out for Virginia getting a share of the royalties, that is something I can support. If it is fair for Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama it should be fair for Virginia.
If McConnell wants our votes, include that we get the same share as others get and then he has two additional votes for cloture.
Mike,
I hardly condemned anyone nor is my comemnt extreme. Calling for more data is extreme? Saying Jay D is right, save for the fact that we need more up-to-date info?
Mike, the only one digging in his heels is the person you see in the mirror. I love how you use the word “nuanced”, as if you and your allies somehow have the more refined view on this.
Regardless, I tracked down some more information for folks to ponder on this subject:
First, we’re talking about oil companies having to pay for the right to use the minerals for profit. You’re absolutely right on that front – and it makes sense. But what you don’t realize is they pay $86 million per day. I expect Virginia will be part of that revenue.
Why? As I stated above, Bob Goodlatte is carrying the revenue-sharing bill. Am I to presume then Warner and Webb will support this bill? I totally agree with the other comments – if it’s good enough for other states, it’s good enough for Virginia. So I look forward to Warner and Webb stepping up to the plate and either supporting this bill or introducing similar legislation in the Senate.
Second, referenced by Jay D was an API document from 2008 about what we might have in Lease Sale 220. There is now updated info from them.
Mike is tilting at windmills (or perahps advocating for them), but I just want to have a conversation based on facts.
Regardless of how ambitious we are at developing alternative energies, renewables will still make up only a fraction of our global energy needs in 2035 according to the EIA.
Is it such a bad thing to be seeking to improve our economy, reduce energy prices, and buy us some more time to develop alternative energy sources?
I agree with LD’s point.
Jay D., 250 k barrels a year? Accuracy of numbers aside, if they can do it at a profit and only add that much to global supply – I’ll take it. 250 here 250 there at some point it adds up to real numbers. It also depends on who’s map u go by as to what is Virginia water for oil purposes.
Well J.R., just yesterday I was speaking with a Virginia State Senator (R) who cautioned that we must get the map fixed before the issue of royalties is addressed. Sounds as if the Party has messed up its signals. Just as you say…”renewables will still make up only a fraction of our global energy needs..” so can we say the same thing about the tiny amount of oil/gas off our coast for which we now will receive absolutely nothing but risk of disaster.
JR, your link is a 1-page API sales brochure, not a study. Even so, this API brochure is dated 12/16/09 and uses the ICF State Level Analysis numbers – which, BTW, is also dated2009 and was prepared for the API as, “an addendum to the December, 2008 API report titled “Strengthening Our Economy: The Untapped U.S. Oil and Gas Resources.”1 The original report documented the potential oil and gas production and economic and government revenue impacts from opening off-limits OCS areas (Atlantic, Pacific, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico), ANWR in Alaska, and a portion of the Rockies. This addendum presents an analysis of these forecasts at the state level.”
Not sure about you, but I was downloading to my iPod and gaming on our PS3 back in the ‘antiquated’ good ole days of ’08-’09.
So which is it: antiquated (if I use the study) OR accurate & current (if you or Gov. Bob use it)?
Britt, I hear you, but put 250K per YEAR in perspective – the US uses 17-20 MILLION barrels per DAY… 6,200 -7,300 MILLION barrels a YEAR.
The coast and the Bay support Virginia’s wealth and high standard of living ~ proceeding with caution shouldn’t be considered an outrageous left-wing idea.
I have no problem being cautious. Exactly why I made the points, I did and agreed the votes were probably for the best.
From reading the comments here it sounds like so many are saying that by dang I paid into SS and Medicare, and I am going to get it, I was promised it, and I don’t care if we have to borrow the money from China or anywhere else to get it. No care or concern about the country as a whole, I just want mine by dang it, and I’m going to get it. For some, money is their God.
Jay D – the data is antiquated because, if you actually read the “sales brochure” it states that those are the best “estimates” based on educated guesses based on what we think we can extract with existing technology…not actual hard data that can only be collected through opening up the OCS to exploration and seismic studies.
So, yes….even my numbers are antiquated, but more up-to-date in terms of the best guess as to what’s out there.
JR, I hate to correct the BlogMeister, but you really haven’t done your homework. API’s sales brochure doesn’t present the best or more up-to-date estimates … it presents the ICF/API study most optimistic estimates ~ and that, young man, is why we call them SALES brochures.
Note the auxiliary verbs/modifiers:
- could produce …
- could generate …
- If revenue sharing … were permitted
Kinda like, “Loose up to 15 lbs per week …”
Mine the data; it all leads to a primary source: the U.S. Minerals Management Service, 2006, “Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of the Nation’s Outer Continental Shelf” MMS Fact Sheet RED-2006-01b, February, 2006 and U.S. Minerals Management Service, 2006, “Report to Congress: Comprehensive Inventory of U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Resources – Energy Policy Act of 2005 Section 357,” [no report number], February, 2006.
Here’s a link to both; note the assessment overview: For the oil resources, the vast majority of this increase occurred in the deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico, while for gas resources the majority of the increase was in deep gas plays located beneath the shallow water shelf of the Gulf of Mexico. http://www.boemre.gov/revaldiv/RedNatAssessment.htm
Let’s be honest; no way we would accept this level of sloppy methodology (or deception) from the other side.
Sandy, there is a big difference between a ponzi scheme that will go bankrupt and otherwise accepting theft or being treated like a 2nd class state in an honest manner. Your comparison makes for a poor analogy.
I am already assuming I will get screwed on soc security. All I can do is plan around that. Virginia does not have to accept being cheated or be bullied by the rest of the states.
Jay & JR:
There is SOME oil and natural gas there. How about we get a fair deal for Virginia, drill, and then see who had the best numbers?
Jay D – I said that. I said that it was an estimate. I said that it was a best guess. What’s your problem?
Oh, by the way, what you’re using too is an assessment too – not hard data.
Until we start getting out there and actually doing seismic studies and exploration, we really don’t know.
JR – My problem is you feed the fantasy by suggesting this data is ‘outdated’ or it only represents a ‘best guess’. API differs: A new ICF International study, Strengthening Our Economy: The Untapped U.S. Oil and Gas Resources, found …
Oil companies set bid price on leases – BASED UPON THIS Study DATA; I’ll warrant it’s more scientific than just a wild ass guess?
There will be no getting out there and actually doing seismic studies until the leases are sold (if allowable) and exploration begins. You’ll know EXACTLY how much oil/gas is there ONLY after you’ve sold it off. Not much different than: “We’ll know what’s in the bill AFTER we pass it” –and about as stupid.
My problem is that our entire Republican congressional delegation, our Governor, and apparently BD seem all too willing to rubber stamp drilling off VA’s coastline simply because it fits the overall party agenda … sleazy, lazy, phlegmatic, rote partisanship. Who is protecting Virginia’s interests? In this case, it’s most definitely Warner and Webb.
More numbers: MMS ~ Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources (UTRR) Mean* Estimates for Planning Areas/ Regional Totals:
- Alaska OCS 26.61 Bbo/ 132.06 Tcf
- Atlantic OCS 3.82 Bbo/ 36.99 Tcf
- Gulf of Mexico OCS 44.92 Bbo/ 232.54 Tcf
- Pacific OCS 10.53 Bbo / 18.29 Tcf
- Total U.S. OCS 85.88 Bbo/ 419.88 Tcf
[* Arithmetic average or expected value]
Jay D – we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. You keep throwing estimates at me as if that’s going to change the fact that we haven’t done an actual seismic study off the coast of Virginia in decades. Key point in your figures: UNDISCOVERED! That means it’s an estimate for planning purposes – or, a damn good wild ass guess.
You’re moving off in a direction that quite frankly doesn’t matter. And, you’re making the same argument that we had at the start of this thread: Virginia must get there’s before we move forward with anything.
Fine.
Then where’s Warner and Webb’s legislation to make that happen? Will they help and support Bob Goodlatte? Are they going to join with Landrieu and Manchin in being the adult Democrats in the room and try to build a rational energy policy as it relates to oil? (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55298.html) How about the legislation just passed in the House of Representatives? Will they support those three energy bills or at least fight to have a debate on them in the Senate?
That’s all I’m asking them to do in this thread. They seem content to sit on the sidelines.
Thanks JR – my political naivety exposed! I guess a bill is not really a bill and a position is not really a position…. when it’s all attached to messaging bills??
It will be interesting to see if compromise can be reached; both parties support foreign oil dependence reduction, yet are polarized on what to replace it with – more domestic oil (and tax breaks for oil/gas) or more non-fossil fuels (and tax breaks for renewable energy). It appears, however, both Webb and Warner have supported oil/gas drilling off VA’s coastline and increased domestic drilling for some time. Again, thanks for the conversation – and the political education.
“Mid-Atlantic coastal oil and gas production does not represent a ‘silver bullet’ solution to our energy challenges, and while it is appropriate to take the time to incorporate lessons learned from the Gulf disaster, Senator Warner sees no reason to delay this process for what realistically could be another seven years or more. Senator Warner will continue to work with Governor McDonnell and other state and local officials, as well as the bipartisan Virginia delegation, to explore ways to re-examine this decision.” ~ Warner’s statement 12-1-2010 re: Salazar decision. http://warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Blog&ContentRecord_id=e243997a-e945-413e-a793-acf54b952834&ContentType_id=ec227f31-cc52-4e56-87db-385a02e2bceb
“In 2008, Senator Webb cosponsored legislation with Republican Senator John Warner to allow the Commonwealth to conduct energy exploration activities in the outer continental shelf with revenue-sharing provisions. Senator Webb has also repeatedly urged the Obama Administration to keep Virginia’s Lease Sale 220 on schedule and has opposed Administration efforts to delay exploration of the nation’s offshore resources.”
http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/05-18-2011-02.cfm
Has our Governor stated his position on this subject?
First, Jay D – I know they have stated that they support it and have sponsored legislation in the past. I’m waiting for them to DO SOMETHING NOW. Get it? Or are you really that thick?
Second, QRow – yes. He would like us to move forward with Lease Sale 220 as quickly as possible. See his website (http://www.governor.virginia.gov/) for more info.
Thick? YGTBFKM. I’d expect Webb/Warner to “help and support Bob Goodlatte” ~ maybe ~ after Goodlatte threw support to S. 940?
Regardless of our polar opposite positions, here’s what will go down: these bills won’t pass … the Administration will move forward (slowly) with already planned EIS seismic studies, public hearings, and military impact study.
IF LS 220 is allowed (and ESPECIALLY if your guys try to circumvent the process w/ more dumb bills), 220 will then become of the 40-50% of each year’s lease sales sidelined by a lawsuit – which will cost taxpayers millions and waste more time.
But yeah, I get your point – which is pretty much blah blah partisan talking points.
Leave your response