Posted on 09/25/2008 7:37:39 PM PDT by Technoman
Dear (Technoman):
Thank you for contacting me about gas prices and offshore drilling, issues that have polarized public opinion in recent months. The high cost of gas has become a major burden for families across the country, but we're seeing two very different ideas for how to address this problem.
Republicans, led by a few hearty voices in the House of Representatives, are suggesting that the only solution to this problem is to plant as many oil rigs off our coastline as possible, no matter the consequences. Democrats are countering that while we must harness our national resources, we gain nothing when we threaten our environment in exchange for a few cents in savings that won't be seen for at least a decade. I agree that we must make use of our homegrown resources. You will find oil rigs around the country and off the coasts of many of our states, so any suggestion that Democrats oppose drilling is wrong. The question becomes whether we toss all safeguards out the window and allow drilling everywhere. I say no.
I voted against the recent comprehensive energy plan, which passed 236-189. Shockingly, the plan was largely supported by Democrats, who saw the bill as a solid compromise, and opposed by Republicans, who refuse to have any limits on drilling. I voted against this bill for one reason: it would open waters off California to drilling. Californians don't want this, and residents of the Central Coast don't want this. I hosted a recent poll on my Web site, with 75 percent of voters saying they opposed additional drilling.
It's important to realize that 80 percent of the oil available on the Outer Continental Shelf is found in regions already open to leasing. Also, oil companies are currently paying for leases on 68 million acres -- onshore and off -- that they're not drilling. Important enough to lease but not important enough to drill? Those 68 million acres of federal land would provide an estimated 4.8 million barrels of oil a day. That's a lot of oil.
The House bill would ban drilling within 50 miles of shore and open the 50- to 100-mile zone if states opt in. California would not take this action. But the bill also opens all areas outside of 100 miles. I could not vote for a bill that would lead to more oil rigs off our shores.
This was not an easy vote. The legislation included some very important provisions. It would repeal tax subsidies for the five largest oil companies that have led to billions in taxpayer-subsidized profits. It would also expand tax incentives for renewable energy and alternative fuels and require utility companies to generate 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources. But none of those positives would make up for the disaster of an oil slick floating through the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Many of us are old enough to recall the devastating oil spill off Santa Barbara in 1968. That must not be allowed to happen again.
Sky-high gas prices are not acceptable. But there are many Democratic initiatives that will lower prices while keeping our fragile shores clear of oil. Expanding our reliance on finite fossil fuels is the wrong tactic. We must wean ourselves off foreign AND domestic oil. I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to come up with responsible solutions that will tap the resources we have here at home in a safe manner, while at the same time moving our focus to alternatives. We must craft energy legislation that balances our need for oil with the environmental protections that we've come to expect in California.
Sincerely,
SAM FARR
Member of Congress
When oil prices are high, exploration wants EVERY drop of oil and none of it in the water (or any other spillage).
Sea life loves everything we put in the water and makes a habitat out of it. If there’s a piece of drift wood on the ocean, there’s more than likely a fish swimming under its shade.
Why do we continue to fund nations that don’t like us and do deals with the Russians who are expanding their nuclear arsenal again to our back yard?
Please read the following statements, and try very hard to discern any similarities; and then point out and explain (in words this poor, ignorant taxpayer can understand) any perceived differences between them.
If I start saving 10% of my income, it will be years before I can afford tuition for my children's college education. This being the case, I see no reason to start saving now, when any benefit is so far in the future, and might even be wiped out by inflation.
I also see no reason to begin construction on any new power plants, since it will take at least 10 years for them to come on line, and provide any benefits.
I see no reason to start drilling now, because it will be years before any benefits will be reaped.
P.S. If it takes 10 years to reap any benefits, how much more oil would we have been producing NOW, and for the LAST ten years, had this policey not been place 20 years ago?
What would current prices be?
How was this NOT in the public's interest?
Dear Sam,
We need the oil now, wherever we have to drill to get it, because it won’t accommodate us by moving to our designated drilling areas. Meanwhile, we could start working on developing shale oil, and the oil at ANWR. Nothing looks more beautiful than the warm lights of an oil rig on the ocean horizon, or caribou sheltered by a pipeline. Feel the beauty. Be the beauty. Lighten up, and get with the program. There are those who drill, and those who watch others drill. Be the drill. Drill here. Drill now.
Well — the several that responded, thank you. But I assume this is no longer seems a big issue, since our gas prices have dipped below $4-per-gallon and the ball games are still playing. This is a reply I sent today, that will likely go to deaf ears.
Dear Congressman Farr,
High gas prices are not acceptable, especially in this flat economy. The
tale that more drilling would take at least 10 years is a myth. In Alaska,
only 50 percent capacity flows through those pipelines. Additional
apparatus linking it to ANWR would take only months. Estimates predict that
we could get around 1.5 million barrels per day, reducing our dependence on
foreign sources from 62 to 57 percent of our total oil. This could be
sustain for around 15+ years.
You “will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to come up with
responsible solutions that will tap the resources we have here at home in a
safe manner, while at the same time moving our focus to alternatives?”
We’ve been hearing that rhetoric from our politicians since the Carter
administration, when oil was at $19 a barrel and we were 30 percent
dependent on foreign oil!
We need to start drilling, beginning with ANWR to ease our dependence. We
need to increase capacity of existing nuclear plants and eventually move
away from polluting coal burning plants. This would free up natural gas for
fleet vehicles. We need more than the usual empty promises, Congressman
Farr. We have to come up with a viable energy plan. Anything less, many of
your frustrated constituents look forward to voting you out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.