Drilling is not over (0.00 / 0)

It's not really over on drilling.  It's a long way off, with massive investments required, and oil prices may drop a bit due to global economic slowdown, which changes the economics, and the legislation hasn't been written yet...maybe, say, Georgia will drill.  I'd be amazed if it happens on the West Coast.  

High gas prices are good for change in this election.  They have dropped in the last few weeks, for a variety of reasons speculated upon by economists.  But in the end, demand from BRIC will ensure that the long term price trend is up.

There is a widespread new interest in mass transit due to gas prices.  Since it will cost money to build out, it will create a middle class constituency for higher taxes.   At a minimum we'll see more buses.

Same for changes in land use in the burbs, say, in currently zoned retail areas.  We'll see mixed use.  

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 14:40:30 PM CDT

And will there really be lease sales if the ban expires? (0.00 / 0)

It's my understanding that lease sales take a long time to prepare, with  environmental and other documentation, then a long time (months) for companies to prepare their sealed bids, then decisions on who gets what.  Then further years of doing more environmental documentation and getting the necessary permits, then finally drilling.  There are opportunities all along the way to derail the process.  

Last I could find the MMS was preparing a 5-year lease plan for 2007-2012.  Does it include tracts subject to the ban?  How soon would they be ready to go?  Would anything really happen if the ban expires on Sept 30 before the new Congress comes in on Jan 5 and the new Pres (hopefully Obama) on Jan 20?

I remember well the transition from Carter to Reagan--we had the Calif Wild and Scenic Rivers approval ready to go the minute the court gave the order on Jan 20--Cecil Andrus signed it before Reagan took the oath at noon.  But lease sales are much harder.  Do you have any idea where the process stands and whether anything would actually happen that couldn't be undone by the new Congress and/or Pres?

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 15:33:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

don't know (0.00 / 0)

I don't know for certain.  I also suspect there are legal issues. Suppose a spill happens in Georgia waters and it affects non drilling Carolina waters....that just came to mind.  In the R solid south, a spill in LA causes no headaches for neighbors. Alaska has no neighbors.   Different story in different regions.

I have a 20,000 foot view; you seem to have a lot of detailed procedural knowledge on this.  I could surf over to grist and ask a friend formerly at sierra and i'll let you know if i find out anything.  

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 16:37:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's a partial answer (0.00 / 0)

Thge MMS did apparently finish the 2007-2012 leaase sale planning.  It is on the MMS site here. The Pdf version is much easier to read.  It shows 4 lease sales planned for 2008, all of which are in the Gulf of Mexico except one in Alaska.  Then 4 more for 2009, all Gulf of Mexico.  In 2011 I think there was one mid-Atlantic tract subject to a lifting of the moratorium.  This was all done under federal rulemaking, so nothing can be changed within the time frames I discussed.  Thye ban can be lifted, but then there is further work that MMS has to do for the lease sales, and they aren't getting the budget augmentation they wanted because there is wither going to be a continuing resolution or a gov't shutdown.  

This leads me to believe that this is really all a charade.  Nothing happens until next year regardless, and then (hopefully) there will be a big energy package that would include very limited modification of the ban.  Then we'll see where prices and other things go.  This is just all posturing.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 18:11:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I we can turn this into a winner. (0.00 / 0)

If Obama and Congressional Democrats argue, as Matt suggested, that all options are on the table as long as we end oil subsidies. We capitulate on a political loser, offshore drilling, and we make them defend tax breaks for oil companies. It could be perfect political jujitsu. Tie McCain to the oil companies and show how he's obstructing meaningful energy legislation because he is beholden to the oil companies.

The truth about John McCain.

---

by: Jawis @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 14:42:19 PM CDT

I wouldn't see this as that much of a loss (0.00 / 0)

As long as the Pacific Coast is off-limits, and the Alaska Wildlife Refuge and the Northeast, and we have a crash program for alternative fuels.  If we have a combination of cutbacks on usage because of bad economic conditions and high prices, plus subsidies and incentives for alternatives, the costs are going to come into line, and the pressure to drill offshore will be less.  The important thing is to get the wind blowing in the direction of incentives for conservation and alternatives.  Some drilling in the future in selected already damaged locations with stringent environmental controls is a small price to pay, since it may not come to pass.  The last petroleum isn't going to be used for fuel anyway; it is going to be reserved for chemical feedstocks.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 15:38:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Always lose? (0.00 / 0)

Republicans have an ace up their sleeve. The ban on additional off-shore leases must be renewed each year by September 30.

This means we got the ban past Bush seven times.  It is only in his final year with $4 a gallon gas that Replublicans got this.  

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 14:46:06 PM CDT

It wasn't an issue those other years. (0.00 / 0)

No one won or lost. Most of those years Republicans controlled Congress.

The truth about John McCain.

---

by: Jawis @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 14:55:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Room for some optimism (4.00 / 1)

But it wasn't an issue because we won the argument, generically.  Offshore drilling was considered not worth it due to environmental concerns.

We focus so much on our losses I just like to point out where we've done well.  Typically, we only notice the big victories that looked like they might be a loss.

Politically Correctness, for example, has been remarkably successful.  Sure, everyone complains about it, but it seriously changes the nature of how we talk and treat each other.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 15:14:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't see the defeat (0.00 / 0)

So, some offshore drilling in limited (if it is limited) areas.  Of course, we already have offshore drilling in sme other limited areas.  It's not a big difference, especially if it is true that there will be no new drilling for years.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 14:51:06 PM CDT

It's a bit of a reach (4.00 / 2)

Progressive victories should be claimed as the result of progressive political action.  

I do agree that the current energy situation benefits progressives in many areas, but I don't see how progressives have played any causal role here.

---

by: wobbly @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 14:54:53 PM CDT

We won by hiding the abiogenic origins of oil. (0.00 / 0)

As long as no one knows the truth gas prices will continue to go up. Al Gore et. al., brought us these wonderfully high gas prices through our top secret scientific conspiracy.

If Jerome Corsi believes it, it has to be true.

The truth about John McCain.

---

by: Jawis @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 14:59:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mike Lux (4.00 / 1)

posted an article about change last week.  It raised in my mind a question I have wrestled with for some years: does politics bring about change, or does it merely reflect it?

I am inclined to think the latter is true.  The idea that Progressives have won something with high gas prices is confused: high gas prices are the result of world economic development.  They may, indeed are, a good thing, but the idea that they are the result of any action progressives have taken is mistaken.

I have come to conclude that politics are a lagging indicator of change resulting from economic, cultural and social changes.  Politics reacts, it does not lead.  

My own reading of the times is that the speed of economic and technological change has outrun our ability to understand it.   Politics in our era cries out for a Globalization Agenda, yet we struggle beyond mere platitudes in our attempts to frame a politics around it.  

---

by: fladem @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 15:01:08 PM CDT

Now there's a winning theme... (4.00 / 1)

Sorry to be snarky but "Raising Your Gas Prices Because It's Good For You" doesn't strike me as a foundation for progressive victory...

...Not the mention the extremely regressive nature of the solution. Somehow I don't see oil companies making/transferring massive profits from working people to the wealthy as a good method for achieving progressive goals. Good side benefit outcomes do not necessarily mean it's a 'winning' policy.

---

by: Steve in Sacto @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 15:08:10 PM CDT

Gas prices are already dropping... a lot (4.00 / 2)

I don't know about what's happening where you live, but here in Mid-Missouri, gas prices have dropped 15% recently, from $4.00 down to $3.40.

Anyway, I'm conflicted about your point.  Gas prices do need to be higher to reduce demand, and therefore reduce carbon emissions.  But the poor and middle class are paying a heavy price because of those higher prices.  Not just for gas, but due to increases in other products due to higher transportation costs.

If the prices had gone up due to increased gas taxes instead, and offset the increase with a decrease in income taxes for the poor & middle class, making it revenue neutral, that would have been much better than all that money going overseas or to the oil companies.

---

by: rickd24 @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 15:14:04 PM CDT

Gee here in CA it's down to $4.00 (4.00 / 1)

From as high as $4.69.

The price of a barrel of oil has dropped from $148 (the high in July) to as low as $110.  That seems to be the current floor price.  Even with Fay and Georgia it didn't get above about $117.

The last $40 or so of oil prices was due to speculation and institutions like pension funds and university endowments going into the futures markets to make more money as stocks went down.  Prices got high enough to bring about a decline in demand in the West at a time when some producers started hoarding in anticipation of even better prices.  Then the dollar strengthened.  Prices started down and people fled for the exits on the oil trade.  There was so much selling that it drove the price down to $110, from where it bounced a little. Gasoline prices then declined a bit too.  If people really do curtail demand, the price can stay down here, although I doubt it will go below $100 a barrel.  But longterm supply and demand factors (plus global warming) still make alternatives necessary ASAP.  A proper PR campaign could get people to conserve even more energy of all kinds, but people seem to be getting the idea.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 15:47:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not a victory (0.00 / 0)

Your comment works only as snark.

If the gas prices were set to change behavior, and fund the needed changes, then I can see the price of gas as a progressive victory. As it is, the money ( and it is real money) is ending up in all the wrong places.  When we go to research the alternatives, test them and implement them, life will be harder because we have squandered our finances.

This price of oil is good like being a junkie is good for future employment--the junkie can always be a substance abuse counselor. We can gain credibility telling everyone else not to use so much oil.

---

by: wind off the lake @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 15:52:15 PM CDT

I urge you... (0.00 / 0)

to take your next vacation on a Texas beach, Chris. Take a walk in the sand. Stop at one of the thousands of "tar-ball-removal station"s along the way to get the gooey shit off of your feet (yes, there are local-government-provided "tar-ball removal stations"). View the beautiful scenery-that-is oil industry infrastructure. Take a look out at the ocean at what should be a star-lit night, but what looks like small cities / towns sitting in the Gulf. Breathe deep the smog-filled air from the nearby refineries. Then go back to whatever urban jungle you've lived your entire life and tell yourself how great it is that more people are riding buses.

---

by: NCDem @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 16:23:39 PM CDT

Isn't this sort of another "I told you so?" (0.00 / 0)

In other words, everyone loses with the high gas prices and the failure to invest in less fossil-fuel based transportation as well as public transportation.  The only reason it's happening now is because we let Republicans screw things up so bad that gas prices are so much higher than they were before, and it's only because of that that we will now see more "progressive" programs be put into place.

Of course, the rest of the world has already been buying expensive gas (and it's still a lot more expensive in some places), so perhaps this is just bringing us more into line with what the rest of the world pays.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 16:47:45 PM CDT