Shag, this one's for you...

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
I was "drive by surfing" and noticed this. I immediately saw logical flaws and hypocrisy in her article. I'd like to see you pick this apart and demonstrate for all of us what an absolute tool Ms. Dianne Feinstein truly is. Take your time - quality over speed. :D

The distraction of offshore drilling

Bush is pushing a false promise. What we need is a long-term energy strategy.
By Dianne Feinstein

July 18, 2008

There is no quick fix to $4.50-a-gallon gas, no way to provide instant relief to consumers we know are hurting. Yet President Bush and others continue to push the false promise of offshore oil drilling.

Just this week, the president lifted the executive order banning drilling that George H.W. Bush put in place in 1990. And he's asked Congress to lift its own moratorium on oil exploration on the outer continental shelf -- which includes coastal waters as close as three miles from shore.

This would be a terrible mistake. It would put our nation's precious coastlines in jeopardy and wouldn't begin to fix the underlying energy-supply problem. And it surely wouldn't ease gas prices any time in the near future.

The vast majority of the outer continental shelf is already open to oil exploration: Areas containing an estimated 82% of all of the natural gas and 79% of the oil are today available to energy companies through existing federal leases. Federal agencies are issuing drilling permits at three times the rate they were in 1999 -- but that hasn't slowed oil prices during the climb from $19 to beyond $140 a barrel.

Meantime, energy companies haven't fully utilized their existing permits to drill on another 68 million acres of federal lands and waters. Exploiting these areas probably could double U.S. oil production and increase natural gas production by 75%.

Opening the protected areas of the continental shelf, on the other hand, wouldn't produce a drop of oil for seven years or longer. It takes a minimum of two years to process the new leases. Industry experts tell us that there's a three- to five-year waiting list for new drilling ships and other equipment.

And with any drilling, oil spills are a very real threat. Californians have learned the hard way how much damage -- environmental and economic -- can be caused by a major spill. A healthy coast is vital to California's economy and our quality of life. Ocean-dependent industry is estimated to contribute $43 billion to California each year.

We cannot drill our way out of the energy problem. Our nation doesn't need smooth talk and rosy scenarios. We need a clear-eyed view of our energy situation.

Oil markets are global. Economic growth around the world -- including millions of new cars in Asia -- means demand for oil is on the rise. With less than 3% of the world's oil reserves, our nation simply doesn't have enough domestic oil to dramatically lower the price.

A weak U.S. dollar and instability in the Middle East exacerbate the problem.

We need to forge a long-term energy strategy that takes these factors into account, moves our nation away from fossil fuels and invests in renewable energy resources. We need to promote conservation and develop clean technologies and clean fuels -- like cellulosic ethanol. We need to continue to raise fuel economy standards for vehicles and improve the energy efficiency of our buildings by 50%.

It's also time to crack down on excessive speculation in critical energy markets. In May, Congress took a first step by closing the "Enron loophole," which brought more energy trading under federal oversight. Congress now needs to eliminate other loopholes and to get serious with large institutional investors who are trading energy futures with no speculation limits.

Changing our nation's fuel consumption pattern is an enormous endeavor. It will take years. But this is the reality we face. And there's no time to waste.

Dianne Feinstein is California's senior U.S. senator.
 
Well, I don't really have time to tear into this right now. I just responded to "ford nut" in the gay marriage thread, and I am now off to see The Dark Knight with a number of friends (after which we will be goin out to drink). The rest of my day today is pretty well taken up. I will get to this tomorrow. :)
 
There is no quick fix to $4.50-a-gallon gas, no way to provide instant relief to consumers we know are hurting. Yet President Bush and others continue to push the false promise of offshore oil drilling.

This part seems to be a bit of an impled mischaracterization. Implying that Bush is proposing a "quick fix" and the unfounded claim of offshore drilling being a "false promise". It is spin that only serves to help set up a straw man mischaracterization of Bush's proposal.


It would put our nation's precious coastlines in jeopardy and wouldn't begin to fix the underlying energy-supply problem. And it surely wouldn't ease gas prices any time in the near future.

How exactly would it put these precious coastlines in jeopardy?

Also, Bush and many others have explained how it would have a quick effect on gas prices (psychological effect on the market). A simple assertion of Feinstein's part doesn't in any way counter that. If she has no argument as to why it wouldn't ease gas prices, then it comes across as a fallacious proof by assertion argument.


The vast majority of the outer continental shelf is already open to oil exploration:

15% is hardly the "vast majority". According to this link and this link, 85% of the outer continental shelf (OCS) is off limits to drilling. Either Fienstien is using a wierd definition of "vast majority" (in which case she is equivocating), she is ignorant of the facts or she is out and out lying. My money is on her lying.


Areas containing an estimated 82% of all of the natural gas and 79% of the oil are today available to energy companies through existing federal leases.

These figures are awful vague. "82% of all of the natural gas and 79% of the oil"....where? 85% of the world's natural gas or just the natural gas available in America? This fact is to vague to mean much, and I am very curious as to what info it is based on. Is it the same source that told her the "vast majority" (15%) of the OCS is already open to exploration?

Considering the fact that, by the way this is worded, she seems to be citing these figures as "proof" that the the "vast majority" of the OCS is open to exploration, I would imagine that it is the same source. These "facts" in no way demonstrate that the "vast majority" of the OCS is open to exploration, and only serve as a red herring that obfuscates this issue.

Also...what kind of leases are these? do these leases allow for exploration and developement (drilling), or are they a type of dual lease; where the the exploration of a lease is separated from its development?

Federal agencies are issuing drilling permits at three times the rate they were in 1999 -- but that hasn't slowed oil prices during the climb from $19 to beyond $140 a barrel.

Given her seeming ability to draw "facts" out of thin air in this article (vast majority of OCS...), it is not unreasonable to question the facts she is giving or the claims she is making and ask for a source for her claims in this article.

What, specifically, is the rate the permits were being issued in 1999? What is the rate today? That is a very vague claim with with no factual basis given.

Why are these permits being issued more today then in 1999? Is it due to more applicants and if so, who are these applicants?

Also, where are these permits being issued, and for who? Is it for large corporations who would be tapping huge reserves, or is it for individuals who can make some money producing a few barrels a day off of their farm?

Considering the huge (and rising) price of a barrel of oil, it makes financial sense for someone with oil on their land to get a permit and tap it, if they can produce even 1 or 2 barrels a day. That is pretty good income for an individual, but hardly enough oil to effect the market much one way or the other. This is most likely the reason for the increase in drilling permits; the increase in the price of oil per barrel making drilling for small amounts lucrative for individuals.

This claim is most likely nothing more then a red herring...

Meantime, energy companies haven't fully utilized their existing permits to drill on another 68 million acres of federal lands and waters. Exploiting these areas probably could double U.S. oil production and increase natural gas production by 75%.

Again, do these leases allow for drilling, or just exploration?

Also, is there any oil on the land leased? If there is no oil, then of course they are not going to be drilling.

Opening the protected areas of the continental shelf, on the other hand, wouldn't produce a drop of oil for seven years or longer It takes a minimum of two years to process the new leases.

2 years to process a new lease?! Sounds like a problem with the federal government, to me.


And with any drilling, oil spills are a very real threat.

Actually, given todays technology, while the spills may be a "real" threat, they are a highly unlikely threat. Just because something is possible does not mean it is probable.

Another red herring that simply obfuscates this issue...

Californians have learned the hard way how much damage -- environmental and economic -- can be caused by a major spill. A healthy coast is vital to California's economy and our quality of life.

I would imagine a healthy national economy and lower gas prices and more important to California's economy and quality of life.

Feinstein is exhibiting very poor judgement and placing her priorities due to her ideology here more then reality. The cost of the very remote and unlikely possibility of an oil leak outweighs the the guaranteed benefit to the economy and standard of living to Californians and Americans in general of drilling offshore.


We cannot drill our way out of the energy problem.

No one is proposing only drilling out of the energy crisis. This is a straw man mischaracterization that has become nothing more then a thought-terminating cliche.

With less than 3% of the world's oil reserves, our nation simply doesn't have enough domestic oil to dramatically lower the price.

Another misleading red herring...

3% of the world's oil reserves. Not of the world's oil, but of the world's oil reserves. Of course most of the world's oil reserves aren't going to be here; we haven't expanded drilling or allowed real domestic exploration for years.

Some interesting facts can be gained from the Comprehensive Inventory of U.S. Outer-Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Natural Gas Resources Energy Policy Act of 2005 by the Department of Interior.

First, you have the definition of Reserves:

The quantities of hydrocarbon resources anticipated to be recovered from known accumulations from a given date forward

The key words are known accumulations. Considering the fact that 83% of all U.S. domestic oil resources are off limits to exploration and drilling by Federal law and have been so for decades, the known accumulations have not increase for decades, while the rest of the world's reserves have increased.

It is also relevant weather Feinstein is using proven or unproven reserves for her 3% claim. I imagine it is only proven reserves, as that number would be smaller and fit more within her agenda.

The Comprehensive Inventory by the DOI also points out:

All resource estimates are subject to continuing revision as undiscovered resources are converted to reserves and reserves to production and as improvements in data and assessment methods occur.

In general, risk and uncertainty in estimates of undiscovered oil and natural gas are greatest for frontier areas that have had little or no past exploratory effort. Resource estimates are highly dependant on the current knowledge base, which has not been updated in 20 to 40 years for certain areas under congressional moratorium and presidential withdrawal.

Of course our reserves are going to be lower because we haven't been exploring in this country for 20 to 40 years (depending on location)!

This fact Feinstein cites in no way suggests anything about our actual oil supply in this country. A red herring, nothing more.

In fact, the DOI report shows that this country has, "undiscovered but technically recoverable domestic oil reserves of 139 billion barrels." This is more than Iran, Venezuela, and Russia.


We need to forge a long-term energy strategy that takes these factors into account, moves our nation away from fossil fuels and invests in renewable energy resources.

This is nothing but misleading wishful thinking. There are no reliable renewable energy sources that have even a hope of being viable (both efficiency-wise, and economically) to offset fossil fuels for decades.

Focusing on this extremely long term "solution" intentionally and disengenuously ignores the "short term" (20+ years) neccessity for fossil fuels until something is viable enough to replace it. It is not in any way reasonable, rational or realistic. Focusing only on the extreme long term while ignoring any shorter term concerns will only hurt the economy and the quality of life; Feinstein's reasons for not allowing offshore drilling near California.

We need to promote conservation and develop clean technologies and clean fuels -- like cellulosic ethanol. We need to continue to raise fuel economy standards for vehicles and improve the energy efficiency of our buildings by 50%.

Again, how is any of tis going to do anything other then hurt the economy and quality of life in this country? More wishful thinking putting ideological concerns over American's needs.

Raising fuel economy standards won't help the economy or the price of gas, in the short run only benefiting American's capable of buy new cars which are now made more expensive due to the need for more advanced technology to gain better MPG's. In the long run it will also increase the costs of available used car and the repair costs for those used cars with higher technology.

Promoting conservation unjustifiably assumes that American's have the ability to conserve more; that they are driving more then they need to. If this assumption is wrong (and there is no reason to thing that it is right to any large extent), and conservation is promoted through any type of governmental force (thus making it mandatory), it will only hurt the economy and the quality of life of American's.

The unforseen negatives of renewable fuel should also be considered; like the increase in food prices due to the E85 sham.

It's also time to crack down on excessive speculation in critical energy markets. In May, Congress took a first step by closing the "Enron loophole," which brought more energy trading under federal oversight. Congress now needs to eliminate other loopholes and to get serious with large institutional investors who are trading energy futures with no speculation limits.

What exactly did Congress do to close the "Enron loophole". Was it something that had an effect? I remember prices increasing through May, June and into July, so what (if any) effect did Congress's action have here?


Changing our nation's fuel consumption pattern is an enormous endeavor.

It is also constitutionally out of the reach of the government to do! Where in the Constitution is this power drawn from?

Also, the idea of changing the nation's fuel consumption pattern baselessly assumes that the nation as a whole can change it's fuel consumption pattern and isn't using fuel as efficiently as possible, which flys in the face of the basic economic laws of supply and demand. The free market is always more efficent then the government, and better at determining efficiency.


It is rather obvious that Fienstien's "concern" for California and the Nation's economic well being and quality of life is disengenuous and selective at best. When it comes into conflict with her leftist enviromental ideology it is clear where her loyalties lie, and the dishonest methods she will go to achiving her ideological agenda.
 
Being as where Ms no- nothing, do-nothing is my state represenative,I have had the opportunity to email her many times concerning issues relative to the state of California, as well as the rest of the nation.
When the immigration issue was on the front burner a while back, I emailed her asking a direct question how and why she would cast her vote on the issue concerning imigration.
She email me back with a long winded piece of crap that never did get to the question I had asked her.
Not only did she not focus her attention on what I had asked, but doubled (correction) triple talked her way out of answering what it was I wanted too know.
She is way to old for the job, and should have been replaced years ago.
Bob.
 
Scholarly as usual, Shag. I'm impressed. I think you should be a moderator. You certainly have the skills. Ever thought of going to law school?
 
Scholarly as usual, Shag. I'm impressed. I think you should be a moderator. You certainly have the skills. Ever thought of going to law school?

I've thought about law school...
Just not too sure if it's for me. The field is real competitive and over saturated presently...
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top