Home / Stop the Sham Energy Bill

Stop the Sham Energy Bill

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In an effort to convince the public that they are not the irresponsible buffoons we discovered them to be when they failed to even consider a sensible bipartisan energy bill last session, Democrats in the reconvened House of Representatives have suddenly bypassed the comprehensive bipartisan energy plan submitted in August to present a purely partisan, midnight 'no-frills' energy bill (HR 6899). In this case, 'no-frills' apparently means very little actual useful content and mostly a great deal of political grandstanding, which is why many are describing it as a 'hoax' and a 'sham'.

The 294-page bill was submitted at 9:45 Monday night with no vetting by any relevant committees, no bipartisan participation, and under procedural restrictions which allow for no debate, limited one-minute statements in opposition to the bill, and no amendments from the floor. The bill provides for no realistic expansion of oil drilling, draws dangerously on federal oil reserves, and is laden with billions of dollars in pork and bizarre pet project provisions, while at the same time doing nothing substantive even on issues of alternative energy research and development. The bill seems to exist solely so that Democratic candidates in the upcoming election can claim that they passed an energy bill, even if it is a total farce. Ordinarily a major energy bill would go through several committees where members of both parties would make sure that it was comprehensive and meaningful. When this bill was submitted hardly anyone but the authors and the Democratic congressional leadership had even seen it, yet it promises to pass on purely partisan lines in an exercise of raw majority power sometime on Tuesday or Wednesday.

In the one minute which Democratic leaders permitted him to speak about the bill this morning, minority whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) said:

Republicans have worked for years in this House to send good legislation to the Senate, joined by Democrats who agree with us on this issue. We worked all of August to call attention to the fact that we weren't dealing with the number-one problem facing the American people and now we have a bill will not produce any more energy and we know will increase energy prices. The renewable portfolio standards that raise everybody's electricity bill are unreasonable. But that doesn't matter because nobody expects this bill to become law. The drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf can't really occur. But maybe that doesn't matter either, because this bill is not about doing something that could become law.

I'm offended. Members of the House are offended and we should be by this process. And the American people should be offended that we're not doing the job for them that really matters.

Even ecological groups are not satisfied with the bill. While some are backing it reluctantly because it provides extensions to credits for renewable energy projects and does very little to expand drilling anywhere but in international waters, others are disappointed with the lack of any kind of comprehensive energy policy or provisions for long-term development of alternative energy. The National Audubon Society issued a statement which said:

We are deeply disappointed with the House energy bill due for a vote today. Instead of adopting forward-looking policies that will address our long-term energy needs, Congress is intent on playing politics. It's no secret that Americans want and need a green energy revolution that will spur energy conservation and expand clean renewable sources of power. Many of the people who will vote for today's package know this to be true. This bill does too little to bring about America's clean energy future.

Among the most questionable provisions in the bill are new rules permanently banning drilling in most of the best potential offshore drilling areas, billions of dollars in low-income housing subsidies, some of which target the districts of specific influential Democrats, and a program which could potentially buy a new bicycle for every commuter in the country at government expense. Not everything in the bill is disastrous. It borrows some good ideas from the comprehensive bipartisan bill which has already been submitted, including increasing the biodiesel subsidy and providing incentives for gas stations to install pumps for alternative fuels.

Aside from virtually shutting down offshore drilling the main problem with the bill is that it has not gone through any kind of oversight and is going to be rammed through the House in less than 24 hours and then submitted to the Senate on a similar fast track, with the goal of killing alternative bills which are much more comprehensive and have bipartisan support. With only two weeks left before the next recess, the goal here is to pass the bill before anyone has a chance to really look at it, stifling both public and legislative debate, but creating the impression that Democrats have done something about energy policy when in reality they are providing only a band-aid when major surgery may be needed.

House minority leader John Boehner expressed the outrage of many who were denied their chance to participate and represent their constituents interests when he said of the bill:

The American people want Congress to vote on an energy bill that does it all. This proposal does virtually the opposite. It’s an insult to Americans pummeled all summer long by sky-high gas prices, who watched congressional Democrats skip town for five weeks without voting on the comprehensive energy reforms Americans need and want.

This latest ‘no energy’ bill is just more of the same from a Majority more interested in appeasing radical special-interest groups that favor high gas prices and contribute millions to Democratic campaigns. It leaves most American energy under lock and key when we should be doing everything possible to expand energy production, increase conservation, and promote development of clean, renewable energy. It would permanently lock up 80 percent of our nation’s offshore energy resources – holding hostage billions of barrels of American oil at a time when we can use their revenue to develop new sources of clean, renewable energy.

This is the time to write your congressman and demand real energy reform rather than a partisan sham bill which does too little and will abort further progress on energy policy. Since you only have a matter of hours to write your representative before a vote is forced, you're probably better off writing your senator before the bill gets rammed down their throats later this week. The senate has a good chance of stopping this sham bill. Our energy future is too important to be thrown away on partisan grandstanding. Tell them to support comprehensive energy policy reform instead.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

Dave Nalle is Executive Director of the Texas Liberty Foundation, Chairman of the Center for Foreign and Defense Policy, South Central Regional Director for the Republican Liberty Caucus and an advisory board member at the Coalition to Reduce Spending. He was Texas State Director for the Gary Johnson Presidential campaign, an adviser to the Ted Cruz senatorial campaign, Communications Director for the Travis County Republican Party and National Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has also consulted on many political campaigns, specializing in messaging. Before focusing on political activism, he owned or was a partner in several businesses in the publishing industry and taught college-level history for 20 years.
  • Lumpy

    You only begin to plumb the depths of the truly retarded stuff in this bill. Putting most of our potential oil permanently off limits to drilling and taxing oil companies so that small opeeators will just shut down is incredibly foolish.

  • Lumpy

    You know Blackwater needs a navy so that oil companies cpuld drill in international waters without depending on permission from. any nation and then hire blackwater to defend their rigs if the UN or anyone else harasses them.

  • Dear Dave:

    This is called “politics.” It’s a game you object to far less when the Republicans play it, even though their tactics have been just as slick, empty, and full of bullshit as the rhetoric on both sides of this energy bill.

    Pleeez don’t try to portray Congressional Republicans as poor, poor honest, integrity-filled bastions of liberty. Not after the many, many stunts they pulled from 1994-2006.

  • The difference, Handy, is that when the Republicans do it the outcome is usually less likely to fuck over the country.


  • bliffle

    Really? Then how to explain the current financial collapse?

    How to explain the current energy predicament?

    Both are the result of neo-republican domination of congress for 14 years and domination of the executive for 7 years.

    Boehner is the most prominent example of partisan posturing these days.

  • Bennett

    “…the outcome is usually less likely to fuck over the country.”

    You don’t have a leg to stand on here, Dave. Your beloved uber-right has done a fantastic job of fucking up just about everything America used to stand for.

    You’ve taken an economy in good health turned it into a fiscal disaster in just eight years. You’ve squandered billions in a war that didn’t need to happen, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders, tortured in the name of justice, and have lost all credibility.

    You can post you bullshit propaganda pieces, but anyone with half a brain sees through your lies.

    America has suffered incredible losses under the leadership of your “Republican Party”, and many Americans won’t forget the intentional deception and the massive profiteering that took place in the name of “security” and “unfettered markets”.

    I’m a conservative, and Republican politics (including your writing) disgusts me.

  • Lumpy

    Are u people completely ignorant of history? the current problems are entirely the result of democrat policies going back to the 60s with the spineless privatization of fannie mae and freddie mac and the ridiculous rules imposed on the mortgage industry.

  • Bennett

    Lumpy, “u” are “completely ignorant of history”.

    Carry on. No, wait.

    “the ridiculous rules imposed on the mortgage industry”

    Ha Ha. Good one. Relaxed by a republican senate, and rubber stamped by a republican President after conferences with industry lobbyists.

    Wow! What patriotic leadership!

  • The collapse of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns were not caused by Democrats, or in fact by Republicans. These were businesses that allowed greed to cloud their sense of reason about risk.

    There is plenty of bipartisan blame for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s excesses, as well, although it’s another favorite wingnut cliche to lay it all at the feet of the Democrats.

    The question is what to do about the mess now that it’s here. It would be amusing to hear the Republican candidates for president and VP talk about new government regulation to “clean up Wall Street” if it weren’t so deceptive, disingenuous, and unbelievable.

  • Pablo

    Wow Dave, you really seem to have sunk to new lows in the last few days, it seems like your left with lumpty-dumpty as your remaining cheering crowd. How pathetic. 🙂

  • bliffle

    Dave and his neo-republican maniac extremists are completely refuted.

    The collapse of the economy is entirely their responsibility.

    Dave and company have persistently alibied and supported the extremist fundamentalist THEORISTS of the far right, and now the result is the collapse in front of their very eyes.

    Dave and his nutty compatriots do not surprise me, it only surprises me that other citizens allowed themselves to be duped by their transparently bogus theories.

    The worst thing about this is that the extreme reaction against this excess will inevitably result with the total collapse of US government and something like state socialism replacing it.

    Thus, Dave and his cohorts will have brought about exactly the thing that they pretended to fight against.

  • state socialism…outta make a liberal like you happier than a pig in you know what!

  • bliffle

    Being opposed to the neo-republicans that kidnapped the Republican party does not make one a liberal.

    But that could hardly impress a fool like Andy who knows only the neo-republican way.

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Actually, handyguy, the Republican administration (with some conservative complicity) did help set the whole thing up by taking off regs and letting go of oversight and encouraging free market greed at the expense of responsible business…..

  • Ok, bliffle, fill us all in on what the ‘neo-republicans’ did to cause the collapse of Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch. I’d love to hear your theory on that one. Or will it just be more of the usual repupublicans are evil, corporations are evil, rah rah kind of bullshit?

    Here are the facts. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were privatized by DEMOCRATS. That’s not in any way disputable. They were then mismanaged by Democrats. The guys who did it are currently among Obama’s top economic advisers, including Franklin Raines who was Clinton’s budget director and ought to have been indicted and jailed for his activities covering up fraud and misdirection of funds at Fannie Mae.

    The irresponsible lending practices they followed were encouraged and supported by Democrat presidents and legislators. Yes, Republicans should have stepped in sooner, but you have to remember that the democrats who were in charge of them were engaged in ongoing fraud to cover up their mismanagement while Democrats in Congress colluded to block Republican efforts at reform and in exchange some of them got discounted mortgage loans from companies that worked with Fannie Mae like Countrywide.

    Corruption aside, the problems start with loan companies which were forced to make loans under the Community Reinvestment Act to people who ordinarily would not have qualified in order to be able to take money from government backed sources. There was no accountability for those high risk loans and no provision for how the money would be recovered if there was a decline in the value of the property they were loaned on. Again, this was a democrat program passed under Carter with a Democrat majority in Congress. The CRA was actually changed under Clinton to make it even more expansive and to allow subprime loans. This was done administratively without going through the Republican Congress.

    And wait, it gets better. Seeing the problem coming, Republicans proposed legislation in 2003 at the request of President Bush to revise the CRA and put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the direct supervision of the Treasury Department because it was already clear at that point that there was fraud going on. Democrats in Congress denied that there was a problem and stalled the legislation in committee so that it never passed.

    So basically, Bliffle, the facts are that the Democrats are entirely responsible for the current economic woes this country is dealing with. Suck it up. The facts are against you.


  • troll

    you democrats and republicans are absurd with your bickering…both halves of the Capitalist Party are guilty in this one

    greed (self-interest) rationalized as ‘maximized profit’ leads to business cycles

    no surprise here

  • troll

    governments have been pretending that they can control these cycles for as long as there has been such

  • bliffle

    I have no interest in defending the democrats, since I’m not one of their number, but the neo-republicans have (aggressively) set congressional policy for 14 years and they owned the whitehouse for 7, and it is in these years that the problem got out of hand.

  • bliffle, did you even read my accounting of the facts behind the crisis? Congress was not really involved and when the Republicans did try to act they no longer had control of Congress and were blocked.

    But troll has a good point on the issue of inevitable cycles in the economy.


  • The crisis is not all about Fannie and Freddie. It’s also about big, big investment banks and insurance companies that have been failing and receiving government bailouts in alarming numbers.

    To reduce all this to which political party is at fault is just moronic and pointless.

    But Dave certainly can’t be entirely happy with McCain/Palin’s “promise” to “clean up Wall Street” – implying new regulation.

    Where is this regulation going to come from? Why hasn’t John McCain [or Sarah Palin, or Dave Nalle] advocated “cleaning up Wall Street” before now? And what methods would you be using for this miraculous cleansing? Comet? Fantastik?

    As the always valuable David Leonhardt pointed out this morning:

    The Bush administration, the Fed and Congress, meanwhile, continue to focus on the immediate crises, with little attention to the underlying reasons that the economy has gotten into this mess — a stagnation of incomes, an explosion of debt and a decidedly outdated, and limp, approach to government oversight.

    Clarifying that “income stagnation” is this bit from last April, same journalist:

    In 2000, at the end of the previous economic expansion, the median American family made about $61,000, according to the Census Bureau’s inflation-adjusted numbers. In 2007, in what looks to have been the final year of the most recent expansion, the median family, amazingly, seems to have made less — about $60,500.

    So what are we going to do, and who’s going to do it? Obama is poised to win this particular debate, much as that may pain Mr. Nalle.

    At least we stopped talking about lipstick and shit for a while.

  • bliffle

    But WHY are there business cycles? You have to know why cycles occur to learn what can be done to predict and moderate them.

    Saying that there are business cycles is a copout.

  • Barney Frank begs to differ with Lumpy’s and Dave’s one-sided version of the Fannie and Freddie story:

    [The blogger] cites comments I made in 2003 that the GSEs are not in trouble as evidence that I did not support reform. Wrong. I supported reform then, I support reform now and I delivered. Dealey also fails to report that the Bush Administration did not support the reform efforts of Republican former House Financial Services Committee Chairman Mike Oxley, who recently told the Financial Times that the White House gave him “the one-finger salute” for his efforts to bring about GSE reform.

    I also supported—with major opposition from the Bush Administration and their conservative Congressional allies—a tough federal law against predatory lending, and I urged then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to write regulations based on the Home Owners Equity Protection Act passed by a Democratic Congress in 1994. Those regulations would have outlawed many of the irresponsible lending practices that fueled the housing bubble and now threaten the entire economy. His successor, Ben Bernanke, issued these regulations last July after seeing the economically disastrous impact of an unregulated market. If we had a predatory lending law and had Greenspan acted on authority he was given, we might have avoided the subprime crisis entirely.

    The House Financial Services Committee, which I chair, moved aggressively after we took over as the majority party in January, 2007, and passed GSE Reform in March of 2007. We worked cooperatively with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to strengthen the bill and the full house voted for GSE reform in early May 2007. I also proposed to Secretary Paulson that we include GSE reform in the stimulus package passed by Congress in January 2008, but he declined, citing problems with the White House with this approach. Now, thanks to the efforts of the Democratic majority, and thanks to the work of former-Chairman Mike Oxley, President Bush can finally count GSE reform as an accomplishment.

  • Bennett

    Thanks Handguy. Great quotes.

    Dave, you’re still morally bankrupt.

  • entirely responsible?

    [In 1999], McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark legislation sponsored by then-Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.), who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country’s financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies.

    That bill allowed AIG to participate in the gold rush of a rapidly expanding global banking and investment market. But the legislation also helped pave the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments.

    But partisan finger-pointing and refusal to take responsibility has done the country so much good, why stop now?

  • Franco

    All in all this piece is good coverage on what is happen now that will effect us tomorrow.

    It is interesting to see everything said in this thread is about blame for the past, while nothing is being said about the reality of today and whether this “quick night” energy bill is good or bad for us all in the future.

    Can we find the integrity to speak on something we can do something about, instead of what we can not!

  • Out of curiosity, Handy, did you actually read the Frank statment you quoted in #22. Note when Frank and his pals finally got it together to do something – 2007, well after the crisis was already under way. And their reform only addressed predatory lending practices, it did not address the restrictions on lenders which discouraged them from applying reasonable qualification standards to government backed loans.

    Frank is using misdirection to suggest that predatory lending is the problem. It’s a problem, but not the root problem. It’s a terrible thing to be exploiting poor people who want loans. But the problem isn’t that they are being taken advantage of. The problem from the very beginning has been that they are being loaned money with federal backing in the first place, when under any rational standards they could not possibly qualify.

    And Franco, I have no idea why we’re discussing mortgage loans on this thread. Good point.


  • I did indeed read it. Maybe you should read it more closely.

    All the references to GSE’s [government sponsored enterprises] are about Freddie and Fannie, a separate issue from predatory lending, and a separately passed reform bill. And as Barney points out, Oxley pushed for Fannie/Freddie reform and got a less than charming response from his own [Republican] party several years ago.

    The relation to this thread is the disingenuous way some Republicans pretended to be for reform that wasn’t going to pass – much as the Dems are now ‘supporting’ offshore drilling that probably won’t even happen.

    Trying to paint complex economic problems as purely partisan issues, and only on one party’s side, just doesn’t wash.

  • I’ll give you that an awful lot of politicians pretend to be something and then find a way to weasel out.

    But I think that my larger points remain true. Each party has certain business alliances, and the Democrats have historically favored the mortgage banking industry and real estate developers.

    And it is certainly true that Barney Frank specifically as well as other democrats defended the mandates which resulted in mortgage companies making loans to unqualified buyers which then led them to look for ways to balance out the risk by increasing profits which is where the predatory practices began.

    The Democrats answer to this was to try to address the lending practices. The Republicans response was to try to address the flawed regulations which created the problems in the first place.

    The real peoblem here appears to be that the two parties never came together on this issue. Why couldn’t Oxley and Bush and Frank all get together and agree on the problem and find a compromise solution?

    If there’s one thing to commend John McCain as a candidate, it is that he is one of the few figures in contemporary politics who HAS brought people together from both parties to solve problems rather than allowing them to continue to work at cross purposes as clearly happened here, leading to nothing getting done.


  • troll

    bliffle – hypothesis: the discrepancy in market power between capitalists and laborers and the logic of maximization motivate the former to seek methods to intensify the rate at which labor creates surplus value and when successful this value ‘transformed’ into capital accumulates beyond the capitalists’ ability to consume and reinvest without then over producing – public spending and creative financing offset the reality of under-consumption by labor…until they don’t – at which point credit and production contract

    …still something of a cop-out which addresses only the ‘boom’ but at least it’s grist for you to work with

  • cuervodeluna

    This thread is worth reading only as far as this–which has got to be the all-time ready-for-bronzing example of the kind of blinders-on-perspective promoted by this site:

    “The difference, Handy, is that when the Republicans do it the outcome is usually less likely to fuck over the country.”

    Wow, now. I don’t pay much attention to US politics, BUT I do seem to remember that when the Bush Gang took office there was a big fat budget surplus sitting there for them to play with.

    What happened to that money?

    Whoever takes office in January will have to apply for a line of credit from a recently-nationalized bank just to get a cup of coffee from Starbucks.

    But–I guess all that waste and corruption and filling Dick Cheney’s coffers along with GW’s nose–that was good for the country?

    I still have a few lots of beachfront Nebraska property up for sale.

  • bliffle

    This energy bill is just total posturing, on both sides, anyhow. It’s political theater.

    There’s no need to pass this in a hurry, just in the last few days of the Bush admin. But the reps were hopng to get one last shot in for their pals at the oil cos. before the end of term, and maybe end of reps, too. the rep energy bill was pretty cynical, containing clauses that they knew the dems wouldn’t accept.

    For their part, the dems shot back with a bill so slanted to their ideas that they knew the reps would explode.

    It’s like Spy vs. Spy.

    Nothing is accomplished, nothing could have been accomplished. But it makes good campaign fodder for both sides.

  • I kind of agree with you here, Bliffle. And the poin that raises is why the hell they don’t just debate and pass the already well vetted bipartisan energy bill whcih currently has 16 senators sponsoring it, 8 from each party. It does everything good this bill does, has reasonable drilling provisions and is comprehensive.


  • Cannonshop

    Text FROM the bill…

    (a) Prohibition- The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) notwithstanding, the Secretary shall not take nor authorize any action related to oil and gas preleasing or leasing of any area of the Outer Continental Shelf that was not available for oil and gas leasing as of July 1, 2008, unless that action is expressly authorized by this subtitle or a statute enacted by Congress after the date of enactment of this Act.

    (b) Treatment of Areas in Gulf of Mexico- For purposes of this subtitle, such action with respect to an area referred to in section 104(a) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (title I of division C of Public Law 109-432; 42 U.S.C. 1331 note) taken or authorized after the period referred to in that section shall be treated as authorized by this subtitle, and such leasing of such area shall be treated as authorized under section 102(a).


    (a) Leasing Authorized- The Secretary may offer for oil and gas leasing, preleasing, or other related activities, in accordance with this section and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) and subject to subsection (b) of this section, section 103 of this Act, and section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1456), any area–

    (1) that is in any Outer Continental Shelf Planning Area in the Atlantic Ocean or Pacific Ocean that is located farther than 50 miles from the coastline; and

    (2) that was not otherwise available for oil and gas leasing, preleasing, and other related activities as of July 1, 2008.

    (b) Inclusion in Leasing Program Required- An area may be offered for lease under this section only if it has been included in an Outer Continental Shelf leasing program approved by the Secretary in accordance with section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1344).

    (c) Requirement To Conduct Lease Sales- As soon as practicable, consistent with subsection (b) and section 103(a), but not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and as appropriate thereafter, the Secretary shall conduct oil and gas lease sales under the Outer Continental Shelf lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) for areas that are made available for leasing by this section

    ‘kay, now, that’s quoted FROM the bill.

    Now, any of you geniuses want to take a look at the surveys and see where the damn OIL or the Natural Gas deposits are? Where the geology says they should be?

    This issue’s a simple one-if Dave’s right, and not blowing smoke, then it’s easy enough to confirm or deny. If he’s not, then it’s easy enough to confirm or deny.

    Full text of the Bill is here.

    you can get your maps here.

    Unlike a lot of bills and laws, this one can be checked with a map and surveys.

  • bliffle

    The so-called bipartisan energy bill deserved to die. It was just another Bush administration favor to the oil companies with a facade of bipartisanship created by holding the alternate energy tax credits hostage.

    The 13-18billion$ oil subsidies (welfare) are clearly unneeded in view of immense oil co. profits.

    The oil drilling provisions, really oil leasing provisions, are egregious and are just more favors to oil companies. All that happens is that the USA surrenders control over oil fields that may be more valuable in the future.

    Alternate energy tax credits should be extended on their own merits. In fact they should be made ‘permanent’ rather than renewable.

    The administration bill sought to trade real and immediate oil co. benefits for illusory and temporary alternate energy benefits. It never was a good bill for USA citizens, but it was very good for oil cos.

  • Cannonshop

    Interestingly, it would appear that linking the actual House Bill Pelosi pushed forward has killed the discussion…except for Bliffle, who still appears to have not READ IT, or pulled up the charts on the USGS site.

    I understand-most of the lit and communications majors might have taken “Rocks for Jocks” for a semester (as their token science credit), but that doesn’t mean they actually learned anything. (after all, it’s not like tree-hugging dirt-worshippers want to actually know how to read a survey or anything…it might mess with their belief systems. Kind of like Christians not wanting to understand biology for fear of it invalidating the poetry in the Bible.)

    Most of the formations that are “Technically Developable” that is, that we have the technology today to tap, are inside that fifty mile limit.

    There MAY BE bigger deposits OUTSIDE the limit, but we don’t have the fucking equipment to tap the damn things…at least, not safely or in a timely manner, in a price range where your women,minority and small-business set-asides are purely cosmetic window-dressing.

    Effectively, the bill acts as a protection for the largest foreign oil companies (Protecting them from Domestic U.S. competition), it’s the status quo enforced, kids, with an extra helping of punishment for consumers in the U.S. who are stuck paying a surcharge funnelled back to BP and T-Boone Pickens (and his ass-buddies) from the american taxpayer, Courtesy of the Democratic Party.

  • Clavos

    And meantime, the Chinese are moving to help the Cubans to start sucking up Gulf oil about seventy miles from US territory.

  • Cannonshop

    Ask the Chinese or the U.N., that’s “Cuban” waters, and anyone on for making bets that the Chinese won’t protect their stake?

  • Cannon, as far as I can tell, the USGS page you link to includes 14 documents, none of which is a map of offshore oil deposits.

    Your link to the text of the bill also doesn’t work, but the one in the first paragraph of my article does.

    This might explain the lack of informed commentary. That and the fact that Bliffle seems not to know which energy bill is which.


  • bliffle

    None of this matters since no bill will be passed and Wall Street collapse has eclipsed this in the news.

    But what does this mean:

    “…we don’t have the fucking equipment to tap the damn things…”

    Who is “we”?

  • Cannonshop

    Bliffle, there’s a phrase, it’s “Technically Recoverable”-that means the technology exists to recover the resource-i.e. it’s not experimental technology, but tech that’s in existence and known to work reliably and safely.

    Hence, “We” as opposed to “People of the Future”.

  • bliffle

    So, who orders the drilling to start, and when and where? “we”?

  • There is no drilling. The dems have seen to that.


  • Cannonshop

    Were it to be opened up, I think you could find a LOT of people who’d go Wildcatting, and even be able to get the funding in this tight Capital situation to do so-were the areas most likely to be productive opened, that is. As it sits right now, only the richest corporate giants can afford the gear to contemplate it, (since the bill only allows the most remote sites, sitting over the most unlikely sources). As it sits right now, the answer is “nobody”, Bliffle. Even outfits sitting on questionable leases won’t-because the threat of lawsuits is high, the capital situation is tight, and they’re making bank keeping the supply choked off while pleasing the envirofascists at the same time, while funnelling money off to Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, and Iran (that is, places that have drilling and don’t have environmental regulations, Civil Liberties, or labour laws worthy of the paper they’re printed on).

    There is no doubt in my mind that you find this to be pleasing, Bliffle, or you wouldn’t be so heavy in your defense of a politically motivated status-quo, or so eager to leap to the defense of a bill you haven’t read, simply on account of who pushed it through.