Bush had the answer to California's money woes...

Bush's plan

Four days before leaving office, the Bush administration issued a new plan to open huge sections of California, Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, Florida and the Atlantic Coast to new drilling between 2010 and 2015.

"American consumers have been demanding access to the oil and natural gas located off our coasts," Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said that day.

For California, the plan calls for leasing ocean waters between Shelter Cove in Humboldt County and Point Arena in Mendocino County, starting in 2014. Oil companies also would be able to drill in two other areas: along the Santa Barbara and Ventura county coasts from Vandenberg Air Force Base roughly to Oxnard, starting in 2012, and from Laguna Beach to La Jolla on the Orange and San Diego county coasts, starting in 2015.

But guess who is protesting against it amidst a financial meltdown...

Environmentalists and fishing groups are calling for the Obama administration to dump the entire proposal. They say the risk of spills, harm to the state's $90 billion coastal tourism industry and the threat to sensitive kelp forests, otters, whales, fish and sea turtles off California's world-famous beaches is too great.

"Wind and tidal energy should be the energy future of America's coastlines, not drilling for oil, which only keeps America wedded to its addiction to fossil fuels," said Carl Pope, national executive director of the Sierra Club.

According to federal estimates, the California coast has 10.5 billion barrels of oil sitting untapped. That would satisfy total U.S. demand for 17 months but is also roughly as much as the nation imported from Saudi Arabia over the past 20 years.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, and California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein oppose any new drilling off California.

www.mercurynews.com...

let them eat cake i say...they made their bed





[edit on 2-7-2009 by JulieMills]

17 months of oil? That's it?..

Is that oil that is proven, or oil that is recoverable? For all we know, it could actually be only 8.5 months

I say let them drill for oil, and pay for any disasters they cause. I don't really care either way. It's not going to solve our problems, though.

Typical distraction tactic by the Republicans. This reminds me of John McCain promising the fix our budget by cutting out all the pork, which only accounts for 2% of our budget. Wow John, 2% of the budget you were going to slash? You ARE a maverick

Yes they did, they made their bed and now they need to sleep in it.

At least Arny is telling the legislature that he won't sign a budget that includes tax increases. That I can commend him for. But the unions are too powerful. They don't want to let any employees go, and in the end the whole of America is going to have to suffer for it.

We aren't addicted to fossil fuels either, come up with better alternative energy plans than Solar and Wind power and we would all be on board. But it is going to take decades to get rid of all the cars that run on fossil fuels.

reply to post by Kaytagg
did you miss this part:
roughly as much as the nation imported from Saudi Arabia over the past 20 years

Originally posted by Kaytagg
I say let them drill for oil, and pay for any disasters they cause. I don't really care either way. It's not going to solve our problems, though.

no but it would solve california's problems.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by JulieMills


No it wouldn't.

They would just use the oil revenues to fund more entitlement programs and give it all away. The politicians in that state seem to have no fiscal responsibility. They just care about paying off their base so they can get re-elected.

*SNIP*

yeah...thats uncalled for and disrepectful. thanks

Mod Edit: Quote Snip.

[edit on 2/7/2009 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by JulieMills
reply to post by Kaytagg

 

did you miss this part:
roughly as much as the nation imported from Saudi Arabia over the past 20 years

We only get 16% of our oil from the entire Middle east. That's why it took Saudi Arabia 20 years to sell us just 17 months (at today's consumption) worth of oil.

The majority of our oil comes from Canada and Central&South America, both of which export more oil to us individually than the entire middle east combined. We get about as much oil from the middle east as we do from West Africa.

We consume 24% of the worlds oil. (just an interesting fact you should know)

Let's see.. what other myths and misinformation can I clear up for you:
Oh yea, we don't need more refineries.

Guess that'll do it for me. You have a good one.


Edit to add: BP's Statistical Review 2009

Took me a while to find online. I was using a June 2008 copy I had on my desk -- so the numbers have changed ever so slightly because of the world economic crash and all.

I think it's interesting to note that North American refinery output has been under 90% capacity for at least the last 10 years (probably longer).
Also, existing refineries are upgraded to handle more capacity, so there's (apparently) really no need to build more of them. Nor do they contribute to gas prices being high.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Kaytagg]

Originally posted by JulieMills

Originally posted by Kaytagg
I say let them drill for oil, and pay for any disasters they cause. I don't really care either way. It's not going to solve our problems, though.

no but it would solve california's problems.

Saying this would solve California's problems makes absolutely no sense.

I wish there were a name I could call people who don't make sense. (Just a side thought)

To paraphrase an old expression....a few days late and a few dollars short.

I suppose the Bush Administration was too busy screwing up the country for the previous 8 years.

BTW, I live in Florida and am opposed to offshore drilling.

Regards....KK

Originally posted by kinda kurious
To paraphrase an old expression....a few days late and a few dollars short.

I suppose the Bush Administration was too busy screwing up the country for the previous 8 years.

BTW, I live in Florida and am opposed to offshore drilling.

Regards....KK

I've never understood why people are opposed to it.

The only flaw I can see is that we'll waste what little reserves we have left right now, when it's cheap, then 1 or 2 years later be right back where we started -- only oil will be even more expensive by then, and we won't have any reserves left.

So why are you against the offshore drilling and such?

Make Kalifornia self sufficient? Are you kidding? That would go totally against their socialist form of government. As stated in many prior threads, the only way to get Kalifornia out of this mess is to legalize marijuana.

If you don't drill for it, it naturally seeps up from the ocean floor. So drilling does more to help the enviroment than just letting it sit there.

California is sitting on a gold mine and are letting it go to waste. Help the enviroment, and help your economy, and drill for the freaking oil!

Originally posted by RRconservative
If you don't drill for it, it naturally seeps up from the ocean floor.

Where did you hear that? Is this something Rush Limbaugh told you?

reply to post by Kaytagg


I guess common knowledge isn't that common anymore. Here you go.....

www.universityofcalifornia.edu...

Twenty years ago, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez was exiting Alaska's Prince William Sound when it struck a reef in the middle of the night. What happened next is considered one of the nation's worst environmental disasters: 10.8 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the pristine Alaskan waters, eventually covering 11,000 square miles of ocean.
Now, imagine 8 to 80 times the amount of oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez accident.

Illustration of what happens
to oil, from seep to plume
According to new research by scientists from UC Santa Barbara and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution , that's how much oil has made its way into sediments offshore from petroleum seeps near Coal Oil Point in the Santa Barbara Channel.

Drilling is expensive and the oil rights are owned by private oil barons.

While drilling seems like a good idea this will not affect California or California will see anything in the form of revenue for many years to come.

Just because is oil in the California coast (or that is what many believe) it doesn't' mean that drilling will start tomorrow and revenues will come the next day.

We are talking about years and as usual the initial fees will come from tax payer to pay for the drilling efforts.

reply to post by marg6043

wrong marge...the platforms are already there. and besides if new ones are needed it would take only 4 years from start to finish to begin making a profit.
California would immediately begin raking in tax profits, companies pay taxes in a quarterly basis.

reply to post by JulieMills


But they also receive money from tax payer in the name of incentives that is how they get to reap the amount of profits they do.

Don't get confuse by the propaganda been played drilling will take time and that doesn't means they will find oil and in the quantities they are telling.

And for 4 years that is just an estimate.