Drill Here? Study, plan, authorize . . . maybe.

The New York Times led with a story this morning that the Prez would open offshore areas to oil drilling. Which is odd since it was barely a year ago that he rescinded the drilling permits ordered by his predecessor. But this is different, because now he may be able to entice some "Drill Baby Drill" Republicans into support of a Cap and Trade type proposal with offshore drilling playing the part of the carrot.

Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time

The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.

The proposal---a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.

Under the plan, the coastline from New Jersey northward would remain closed to all oil and gas activity. So would the Pacific Coast, from Mexico to the Canadian border.

The environmentally sensitive Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska would be protected and no drilling would be allowed under the plan, officials said. But large tracts in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska — nearly 130 million acres — would be eligible for exploration and drilling after extensive studies.

But the devil is always in the details. The report says that:

"the administration plans to adopt some drilling proposals floated by President George W. Bush."

Note: that the administration plans to adopt some not all. The report goes on to say that officials say:

"The first lease sale off the coast of Virginia could occur as early as next year in a triangular tract 50 miles off the coast."

Or it could occur as let as never. Why? Because the Interior Department

"will spend several years conducting geologic and environmental studies along the rest of the southern and central Atlantic Seaboard. If a tract is deemed suitable for development, it is listed for sale in a competitive bidding system. The next lease sales — if any are authorized by the Interior Department — would not be held before 2012."

Don't know about you, but I find that to be a lot of what if's, kinda sorta's, and maybe's in return for a vote for another large tax increase in the form of Cap and Trade.


As Moe Lane puts it:

"the White House is implying the promise of jam tomorrow - in reality, it’s just a study to revisit the denial of jam yesterday - in exchange for jam today. Only the jam today is actually a swarm of angry wasps. Try again, Mr. President. Start with rescinding your interference with the Bush drilling permits, and expect to give up more. A lot more: your opponents are not interested in indulging the Greenies’ quaint, somewhat primitive religious sensibilities."

In other words, an operator’s ability to drill and explore a lease is subject to his ability to secure the requisite approval from the various government agencies that issue permits for that activity. So, theoretically, the Feds could issue a lease, but if one of the regulatory bodies refuses to issue a permit, there’s no drilling.

And, guess what? It already happened last month.

Montana oil leases suspended

BILLINGS – A federal judge has approved a first-of-its-kind settlement requiring the government to suspend 38,000 acres of oil and gas leases in Montana so it can gauge how oil field activities contribute to climate change. …


Under the deal approved Thursday by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, the Bureau of Land Management will suspend the 61 leases in Montana within 90 days. They will have to go through a new round of environmental reviews before the suspensions can be lifted.


A parallel lawsuit challenging 70,000 acres of federal lands leased in New Mexico remains pending.

Put simply this is a scheme to regain support for a Cap and Trade proposal that as of this moment appears to be dead. To fall for anything this administration proposes at this point is a mistake. Just Say No to everything until November. Then begin the conversation anew.

So, who is Hitler again? I get confused!

Evan Coyne Maloney has had some interesting posts over the past week on his Brain Terminal blog. In it he shows how the latest efforts by Dems to play up the violent rhetoric and make themselves the "poor me" victims doesn't square with how they were thinking just a few short years ago when Bush was in office. So, let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we?




From the Powerline Blog reffering to Maloney:

During the Bush administration, Evan was out in the field with his camera observing protests and interviewing protesters. He is therefore in a good position to recall the signs and symbols of the left-wing opposition to the Bush administration's post-9/11 national security policies. How do they compare to the Tea Party protesters expressing their opposition to Barack Obama's program of national socialism?


Evan has now produced a timely new video splicing together footage that he calls "A trip down memory lane." He describes it as four minutes of nonstop examples of violent imagery and extremist rhetoric employed by left-wing anti-Bush protesters. He writes: "For some reason, despite it being well documented at the time by me and many others, the media chose to ignore it." Indeed.

In his "memory lane" post, Evan observes a transformation in the attitude of the Democrat/media axis to political protest. He even identifies the precise date of the transformation: "[I]t seems that publicly airing your grievances stopped being patriotic right around noon on January 20th, 2009." How so? "Once President Obama was sworn in, protesting became incitement to violence."

Evan adds: "One thing's for sure: If there is such a thing as dangerous rhetoric, then the media is at least one president too late in reporting the story."

Evan also has another post from the 25th that recalls what the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue thought of how to confront those with differing opinions. In fact he has used it to his advantage on more than one occasion.

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama didn’t shy away from confrontation. In fact, he encouraged it by telling supporters to “argue with” opponents and to “get in their face[s].”


The Obama Administration’s confrontational tone included some violent imagery last August, when one White House official encouraged Obama supporters to “punch back twice as hard” against opponents.