• CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US

  • Home
  • News
    • NewsFlash
  • A&E
    • Movie Times
    • TV Listings
    • A&E Blog
    • Art Galleries
    • Best Bets
  • Opinion
    • Columns
    • Voices
    • Letters
    • In Memoriam
  • Events
    • Today
    • Search
    • Submit
    • Best Bets
  • Living
    • Travel
    • Sports
    • Peeps
  • Food & Drink
    • All Restaurants
    • Delivery
    • All Bars & Clubs
    • Drink Specials
    • Open Now
  • Outdoors
    • Outside Insider
    • Spotlight On
    • Features
  • Classifieds
    • Real Estate
    • Jobs
    • Autos
  • Personals
  • Obits

Capps Blasts McCain and Bush

Calls Bid to Lift Moratorium on New Offshore Oil Leasing “Dodge” and “Smokescreen”


Sunday, June 22, 2008
By Nick Welsh (Contact)
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us. del.icio.us.
Digg! Digg!
furl furl
google google
newsvine newsvine
reddit reddit
technorati technorati
Facebook Facebook
Yahoo! My Web 2.0 Yahoo!

Santa Barbara Congressmember Lois Capps attacked efforts to lift the moratorium on new federal oil leases off the United States’ coast with all the gusto of a sugar-hungry six-year-old going after a birthday party piñata. Capps, who represents one of the most oil-adverse districts in the United States, ridiculed the idea—which was put forward this past week by President George Bush and the presumptive Presidential nominee of the Republican Party John McCain—that the acute pump pain now being experienced by American gasoline consumers can be addressed by lifting the Congressional moratorium on new offshore oil leasing in federal waters off the coast. “This is a dodge, a smokescreen,” Capps said, “to keep our eyes off what we should be focusing on to really address the problem.” By that, Capps said, Congress and the federal government should be promoting conservation and alternative energy sources, including solar, wind, and biomass-derived fuels.

Capps noted that even if the outer continental shelf contained as much oil as industry analysts and government agencies suggest—18 billion barrels—it would take at least ten years for any of that to come into production. And given the intense worldwide demand for oil, Capps predicted, the new supplies would have at most a negligible effect on gas prices. To think otherwise, she said, “is just crazy-making.”

Lois Capps
Click to enlarge photo

Lois Capps

The oil industry, Capps contended, has been driving up the price of oil through a combination of speculative trading schemes and by withholding massive offshore lease holds from production that oil companies have held for many years. According to federal records, various oil companies have secured 68,000 acres of offshore property that they’re not currently drilling or producing. “They’re just sitting on them,” charged Capps. “They like these high prices.” Industry officials dispute that, noting that it typically takes many years to secure the necessary permits to drill and produce after acquiring the leasing rights. None of those 68,000 acres, however, lie off of Santa Barbara’s coast. There are 37 undeveloped offshore leases, however, but they are presently the subject of litigation filed by environmental organizations. It’s estimated that those leases could produce as much as 580 million barrels of oil, less than a month’s supply for the United States, according to Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center, which represents these suing groups.

There are, in fact, not one but two oil leasing moratoriums in place. The first one is congressional, and was passed in 1981 in response to Santa Barbara’s cataclysmic 1969 oil spill. Legally, the congressional moratorium must be renewed annually. That approval typically is included as part of the Department of Interior’s annual Appropriations bill.

President George W. Bush
Click to enlarge photo

President George W. Bush

The second moratorium is presidential, having first been enacted by the previous President George Bush in 1991. That moratorium has since been re-affirmed by Bill Clinton. Without approval by the next president, the presidential moratorium is scheduled to expire in 2012. Barack Obama has opposed lifting the moratorium.

Capps said this year’s assault on the oil moratorium is nothing new for the current President Bush. Every year for the past eight years, Capps said, various Republicans—with Bush’s backing—have sought to overturn the congressional moratorium on new offshore leases. Two years ago, Californian Republican Congressmember Richard Pombo came the closest to actually overturning the moratorium. Working with a solid Republican majority, Pombo succeeded in having the moratorium language deleted from the Interior Appropriations package. But even though Republicans enjoyed a House majority, Capps and a bi-partisan coalition of other coastal state representatives managed to get the moratorium language re-inserted. Key to the success of that effort was the participation of key Republicans from Florida. But this year, several Florida Republicans have cited the economic pain inflicted by the rapidly rising cost of gas as motivation for their second thoughts. Chief among them is Florida Governor Charlie Crist, often included on the short list of politicians considered as a running mate by McCain. In the past, Crist has supported the moratorium. Capps suggested that this political motivation might be behind Christ’s recent change of heart. “If you have your eye on being vice president, that’s what you have to say, if you’re governor of Florida,” Capps said. What’s different now, she added, is not just the $75 it cost to fill one’s tank with gas, but that, come January, the oil industry will lose a White House uncommonly sympathetic to the oil industry’s interests. In that context, Capps said the latest effort to overturn the moratorium should be seen “as the industry’s last ditch effort to get one over on the American people.”

John McCain
Click to enlarge photo

John McCain

Although McCain — who is scheduled to attend a fund raiser in Santa Barbara on Monday — is now opposing the moratorium, he has, in fact, supported it in the past. In addition, he remains opposed to oil development in Alaskan environmentally sensitive wilderness reserve. McCain spokespeople have acknowledged that opening up America’s offshore tracts to new leasing will not deliver any immediate relief from high gas prices. But they have insisted that the policy reversal will send a powerful message to the global energy market that the United States is serious about reducing its dependence on foreign oil. The U.S. currently consumes roughly one-quarter of the world’s oil supply, and only a small fraction is produced within the 50 states. McCain, in his address to oil executives earlier this week, argued that individual states should be allowed to opt out of the existing moratorium. As an inducement, states should be given a slice of the royalties. For some cash-strapped states, this could prove irresistible. Capps and other critics of this plan argue that oil spills and air pollution do not respect state boundaries and that individual states should not be allowed the option of lifting the moratorium.

Capps acknowledged that the high gas prices have cost the oil leasing moratorium political support. In fact, if the moratorium came up for congressional renewal today, she said, “I’m not sure how the vote would go.” Both of California’s senators, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, strongly support it. So does House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents the Bay area. And so does Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has endorsed McCain for President. But Capps conceded that some of the Republicans who have endorsed the moratorium in the past no longer do so, and even the Terminator can’t bring them back. Part of the Democratic strategy is delay. Rather than subject the moratorium to something as risky as an actual vote, the Democrats have decided to keep it alive via a parliamentary maneuver known as the “continuing resolution.” Typically, these are deployed to keep the government financially afloat during times of budgetary impasse. Republicans, sensing their advantage, can be expected to clamor for a vote, but as members of the minority party, won’t be in a position to force one.

The other part of the Democratic strategy — at least in the House — has been to go after the oil industry and its record profits. The House has passed two bills designed to eliminate tax breaks currently enjoyed by the oil industry worth roughly $16 billion, redeploying them to producers of alternative energies. While these measures passed the House by substantial margins, they’re could not override a certain presidential veto, and the Senate has been less than enthusiastic, as well. In the days and weeks to come, Capps said “use-it-or-loose-it” legislation would be forthcoming, meaning that oil companies that have sat on leased offshore lands for 10 years without taking meaningful steps to develop them will either be forced to sell them back to the federal government or surrender them due to lack of performance. In addition, she said a bill would be introduced to bring energy speculators under the same regulatory control as other commodities. Eight years ago, the Republicans passed a measure exempting oil traders from this oversight in what’s known as “The Enron Loophole.”

But even if Bush, McCain, and the Republicans were to prevail, Krop said it would be a light year of Sundays before any new lease sales translated into actual production off the California Coast. The Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commission would both have something to say about it. And every step of the way would be subject to the full panoply of environmental review. “In terms of gas prices, it wouldn’t make any difference at all,” Krop said. “And it would be a very long process getting there.”

Story Help (Click-ability)
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

Comments

Discussion Guidelines

Where will America get it's energy?

$4-$5 gas isn't going away? Ethanol is driving up food prices. Oil is bad for the offshore environment, but democrats don't offer a valid alternative.

Georgy (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How about lowering the speed limit to 55mph once again?

gaviotamilitia (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Jimmy Carter era strategy of lowering the speed limit wouldn't do much good unless we all drove Jimmy Carter era cars. Since then automakers have designed their vehicles to get better mileage in the 65+ range. My '95 Avalon gets its best mileage at around 75.

I think it's time the politicians offered some short term solutions in order to carry us over to the long term ones without going completely bankrupt. FDR didn't come into office telling America to hold on a few more years, he said give me 100 days and I'll give you results you can see in your wallet.

Brad (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Look at Norway for a Green model of offshore drilling. They use the best technology available, are energy independent. We can produce ethanol on a cost-effective basis, IF the Imperial Senate and the useless House get the HELL OUT OF THE WAY. Cellulosic (wood chip) ethanol is part of OUR answer. Maybe if we got dead trees out of our forests we could make the state SAFER to live in and use those trees to make fuel.

scorphitman (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry Brad, but most experts believe a return to 55mph would really help our country:

"Smaller efforts today could make a difference. For example, driving at 10 miles an hour above the 65 miles-per-hour limit increases fuel consumption by 15 percent; inflating tires properly cuts gasoline use by 2 percent; keeping engines idle while in line wastes millions of gallons."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/busine...

And don't forget the other part of Roosevelt's plan; shared sacrifice to meet our problems head-on -- so let's all pitch in with the manageable solutions (which worked in the Carter years, by the way) and elect a government which is pro-actively seek solutions, make adult, responsible decisions which don't bankrupt and endanger our country, and get this country back on track after the past dark 7 years.

Other fuel tips and info http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabi...

It's nice to see you turning toward Democratic solutions and one of our greatest presidents.

binky (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2008 at 12:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"democrats don't offer a valid alternative"

So many fools. Try actually reading the article:

"By that, Capps said, Congress and the federal government should be promoting conservation and alternative energy sources, including solar, wind, and biomass-derived fuels."

truth_machine (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2008 at 2:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Alternative sources and conservation are necessary but not a complete solution. Ethanol takes more energy to produce than it provides when the total life cycle economics and thermodynamics are considered. Clean coal and nuclear for electricity, natural gas for heat, oil derivatives for transportation make for an intelligent energy policy. Blind adherence to the same policies that got us into this mess do not help. If it were up to Capps and her ilk, we'll all be sitting in the dark with our useless vehicles outside our homes unable to get us to work wondering where our next meal would come from.

RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Capps and other critics of this plan argue that oil spills and air pollution do not respect state boundaries and that individual states should not be allowed the option of lifting the moratorium."

Capps has this one right, lifting the moratorium would be completely acceptable if they allowed the local communities to make their own decisions on drilling.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gee, and maybe if we weren't subsidizing foreign oil, both directly and indirectly (direct subsidies and foreign wars to protect the oil all cost money), the markets would have corrected themselves long ago and we would be much closer to energy independence.

Democrats have a hard time believing in free markets (which also respect property rights, i.e., no polluting your neighbor or community), because they don't realize that they have never been even close to experiencing it. Democrats think we need government to protect us from big corporations, but the only reason they exist because of corporate welfare and the Federal Reserve. If the federal government would provide a sound, constitutional monetary system and follow the rest of the constitution and stop giving out corporate welfare, there would be no support structure for these large, corrupt corporations. If we followed property rights we would have more clean, alternative energies.

Or we could elect Obama, and they can go around Obombing Iran and Pakistan and destroy our economy at home. Hey, at least he's better than McBush.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wind, solar, and conservation would help, but the only funding the federal government gives to this research is coming from the military.

Electric cars get no support except from the US Navy. Clinton and Obama caved into the corn lobby to support ethanol. They give lip service to wind and solar, but the current congress does not financially support independent suppliers of wind, electric vehicles, and solar, they just complain that by 2020 we need better gas mileage. By 2020 the world will be so far past peak oil that gas from oil will be more like $12-18 per gallon.

Cars run much cleaner on natural gas which America has a vast supply of onshore. Natural gas could help protect against global warming for about 20 years until the politics for solar electric vehicles becomes favorable. It is easy to convert engines to run on natural gas. But the current congress refuses to adopt an energy policy. Both the Dems and Repubs are asleep at the wheel. And as long as they continue the current do nothing course of trying to punish oil companies with taxes the price of gas will continue to go up and international oil corps. like BP and Chevron will continue to reap record revenues.

Lois Capps needs to give her district a comprehensive energy policy that doesn't ignore economics and is reality-based.

Georgy (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Binky: What solutions worked during the Carter years? I remember gasoline lines, mortage rates north of 12%, short term interest rates at 18%, and the highest inflation rates this country has ever seen. Carter was an honorable man who was a disastrous president.

RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lowering the speed limit will get an immediate 10% savings in gas usage (and lower traffic fatalities), but the real key is creating and subsidizing mass transit and getting us idiots out of our SOVs

tegrat (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wasn't this war supposed to fix the oil problem - what went wrong?

GoletaResident (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2008 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

More than half a million soldiers...

GoletaResident (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, statisticians still argue about whether the doublenickel lowered fatalities or whether it was seat belts or other safety features in cars (multivariate analysis is required, but beyond the IQ of the sound bite and the typical political platform). 55 does save gas, but costs time (ever drive through Utah or Nevada or Kansas at 55mph?). What's the tradeoff?
Easy, but not productive, to poke at Big Oil. They make a lot of money in absolute terms, but not as a % of sales - soda pop is a more profitable business - ever calc how much you pay for a gallon of Coke and how much profit Coca Cola Corp gets from it? Or latte and Starbucks? Where's the outrage? The answer is not simple and not one-dimensional. More drilling, more wind farms (if u can stand the concomitant execution of birds), more nuclear plants, more clean coal plants are all required. This is not a simple black and white issue, although many politicians and narrow-focus special interest groups would like to portray it that way.

RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2008 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Too many words for me - but quite interestiing

GoletaResident (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post a comment

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

EVENT CALENDAR

Previous Month | Next Month

Today's Events Best Bets Submit an Event

Local Weather

Currently:
Clear Sky
Temperature:
69.1°
Wind:
17 NW

Surf Report
  • Specials
  • InPrint
  • Top Emails
  • Blue Green Guide 2008
  • Summer Camp Guide 2008
  • Wedding Guide 2008
  • SBIFF 2008 All Access
  • 2008 Election Coverage
  • Best of Reader's Poll 2007
  • Calendar of Fundraisers
  • Local Bands
  • Kid's Mother's Day Issue
  • Made in Santa Barbara
  • Zaca Fire 2007
  • Election 2008 Kickoff
  • Esau’s: It’s Not Just for Breakfast Anymore
  • Juarez’s Fate in Jurors’ Hands
  • Our 2008 Endorsements
  • k.d. lang Returns, Wearing Her Heart on Her Sleeve
  • World Series Now?
  1. Watch Her Strut
  2. The Trolley of Terror
  3. Barney Buys a House
  4. Brad Ebner’s Comeback
  5. Cold Springs Trail—East Fork
  6. Hydromulching Completed at Los Padres National Forest
  • CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US
Google
 
Independent.com Web
Copyright ©2008 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Independent.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. If you believe an Independent.com user or any material appearing on Independent.com is copyrighted material used without proper permission, please click here.
This is our Privacy Policy.