Post User Polls

Should the government allow offshore drilling?

The Obama administration will approve significant oil and gas exploration off America's coasts, including a possible sale two years from now of leases off Virginia's coast, administration officials said Wednesday. Read the full article.

By Jodi Westrick  |  March 31, 2010; 10:13 AM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Levi Johnston or Sarah Palin? | Next: Are you planning on purchasing an iPad?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



This is absolutely ridiculous:
"This is a non-scientific user poll. Results are not statistically valid and cannot be assumed to reflect the views of Washington Post users as a group or the general population."

What possible value is this waste of time? First, there is no check of sample base so the loons can line up their minions and flood this pool, skewing the results to their will. And since the right wing echo chamber has much better organized followers you can bet this poll will be filled with teabagger minions hitting the send button from wifi sites everywhere.

Second, the question is stupidly oversimplified. While I am generally skeptical about offshore drilling, when weighed against the other environmental benefits bargained into this agreement and my confidence in the current administration's ability to regulate and safeguard operations, I am for allowing it now.

Finally, since the results aren't valid AND you have no way of checking how they are skewed it is irresponsible to publish the results.

What a stupid and dangerous exercise. Have some sense.

Posted by: joebanks | March 31, 2010 10:44 AM

Obviously, the best thing to do would be to allow drilling in Alaska where the history shows no damage to the environment and where there a huge known oil deposits. The president wants to allow drilling where relatively small amounts of oil are available and where the environmental effects are unknown. The logic is, as usual, not there, but the politics are obvious.

Posted by: tenshi1 | March 31, 2010 10:59 AM

"This is absolutely ridiculous:
"This is a non-scientific user poll. Results are not statistically valid and cannot be assumed to reflect the views of Washington Post users as a group or the general population."

What possible value is this waste of time? First, there is no check of sample base so the loons can line up their minions and flood this pool, skewing the results to their will. And since the right wing echo chamber has much better organized followers you can bet this poll will be filled with teabagger minions hitting the send button from wifi sites everywhere.

Second, the question is stupidly oversimplified. While I am generally skeptical about offshore drilling, when weighed against the other environmental benefits bargained into this agreement and my confidence in the current administration's ability to regulate and safeguard operations, I am for allowing it now.

Finally, since the results aren't valid AND you have no way of checking how they are skewed it is irresponsible to publish the results.

What a stupid and dangerous exercise. Have some sense.

POSTED BY: JOEBANKS | MARCH 31, 2010 10:44 AM"

--------

Get a grip. The Post constantly runs these "polls," often on frivolous topics, to generate clicks and user interest. Nobody in the world include right-wing talkers, takes the results seriously. It is a minor trivial game, a way to click and idly check what others have clicked.

Only you seem to have confused this with an actual, professionally conducted poll that would be the basis of a news story. This isn't. It's a fun gimmick. And the Post has done it day in and day out for years, not just for this story. I'm pretty sure some of the questions, for example, have involved Bo Obama. Were those reckless and irresponsible too?

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | March 31, 2010 11:01 AM

If this oil is put up for sale on the open market, then the oil companies will be the ones to profit. However, if it is designated for our use only, then it might be beneficial in keeping the cost of gas and heating down to manageable levels.

Posted by: Utahreb | March 31, 2010 11:06 AM

I am mixed on this. I am a terrible environmental activist because I am terribly lazy when it comes to doing the right thing environmentally. So it's hard for me to talk. Drilling off the coast is the same thing, maintaining a lazy, indulgent country just that, lazy and indulgent. We probably need to abstain from our oil addiction so that we can get serious with energy efficient technology. Not so much for the global warming argument, because I don't know who is telling me the truth anymore, just to save money and keep the air clean.

Posted by: kswsting | March 31, 2010 11:07 AM

I'm interested to see how the Republicans can say no to "drill baby drill"
When the tarballs start rolling up on the beaches who's going to be up for offshore drilling then?

Posted by: jerseydevil | March 31, 2010 11:15 AM

As an avid East Coast surfer I voted for the guy who said he was opposed to "Drill Baby Drill".

Where'd he go?

I pray Dr. Dean primaries this jerk.

A former Obama supporter.

Posted by: anarcho-liberal-tarian | March 31, 2010 11:21 AM

I agree that this, like most polls, ignores the reality of gray area. I'm neither for nor against offshore drilling, but I'm also sure of where I stand that drilling should be minimized and should be only a small part in a larger energy plan that includes wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, and a hint of nuclear power.

Posted by: damascuspride04 | March 31, 2010 11:36 AM

I won't be happy until we can see asphalt balls rolling up on the Jersey Shore.

Posted by: muawiyah | March 31, 2010 11:37 AM

"allow drilling in Alaska where the history shows no damage to the environment"? I guess you never heard of the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska that did monumental environmental damage, wrecked livelihoods and caused human illness including fatalities. I think we should go as far as possible with wind and solar before we make any more of those kinds of compromises.

Posted by: eburke2 | March 31, 2010 11:41 AM

This is a monumentally bad decision. Drilling the OCS will wreak havoc on all ocean species. Marine mammals are highly sensitive to noise pollution. The Gulf of Mexico already has a dead zone too big to imagine from toxic run-off in the Mississippi R. Delta. Eventually the waters around the East Coast will be unsafe & pollute the Bay.

No offshore drilling should ever occur in the Arctic. As global warming continues to melt fragile Arctic habitat, polar bears and other imperiled species are fighting for their lives. CITIES did nothing to protect them last week. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Western Arctic Reserve and the Polar Bear Seas along Alaska's north and west coasts are the fragile home of polar bears, whales, caribou and millions of birds. Those locations will be ravaged by the oil and gas industry with a continuation of pro-polluter Bush Administration policies.

The Alaska Pipeline has been an environmental disaster with all the oils spills -- the ones publicly announced and those kept quiet. Drilling the OCS is destructive the the health and safety of the oceans of the world thereby jeopardizing the health of humans, plants, and animals it sustains. This decision has disaster written all over it on so many levels.

Posted by: alb2 | March 31, 2010 11:46 AM

We are already allowing offshore drilling. The question is should we allow more drilling in areas that are increasingly more remote, difficult, and in sensitive habitats. The sad truth is that we are not keeping up with our R&D to prevent, respond, and restore the impacts of oil spills. The San Francisco Bay spill a couple years ago is evidence of this. That spill occurred in a protected waterway, with hundreds of support vessels, thousands of workers, excellent logistics- and only a fraction of the spill was recovered. Contrast that to a spill off the Alaska or even Virginia coast. Responders won't even get on-scene to respond before the oil spreads and becomes unrecoverable. The recent spill in Australia- Less than 5% recovered. If we are going to drill, we need to be prepared for the consequences.

Posted by: baranof1 | March 31, 2010 11:51 AM

the low hanging fruit of conservation is rarely mentioned - how can we expand into questionable "recovery areas" when we will just turn around and waste 40% of it?

Posted by: kenton55 | March 31, 2010 11:58 AM

Man! Some of you liberals are extremely sensitive, sort of reminds me of the W.H or for that matter Waxman.

lol

Posted by: Magox | March 31, 2010 12:01 PM

McDonnell/Cuccinelli/Obama = gang rapists of Virginia.

Posted by: solsticebelle | March 31, 2010 12:09 PM

I feel it's a political decision, a way to shut up the wingnuts (albeit only on this issue), and to claim the "center" (whatever that means) of the energy debate, but I'm not sure how much we can benefit from it, or how long any benefit will last.

However, with our weak economy I'd happily step on a few tarballs so people can get decent jobs-- even though this won't kick in any time soon. The Atlantic coast is already filthy anyway. Anyone care to swim in the Delaware river? How about some herbicide-marinated fish? We're not talking about some kind of pristine environment here.

Allowing drilling would give us political latitude to pursue alternative energy options that would not be available to us otherwise. With Congress it's all about horse-trading. That's the reality of it. And we need the oil anyway, that's not going to change any time soon. So drill now and start working on wind and solar already.

Posted by: alarico | March 31, 2010 12:10 PM

JOEBANKS, GET OVER YOURSELF. THIS POLL MAY BE FLAWED BUT IT STILL PROVIDES A FAIRLY ACCURATE TAKE ON PUBLIC OPINION AND GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE OUR OWN OPINIONS.

We better start drilling or be forever bound to the whims of countries that hate us.

Posted by: ddnfla | March 31, 2010 12:18 PM

Actually, the Atlantic Coast is far from filthy and I've swam, canoed and fished the Delaware River, it's tributaries and the surrounding lakes, hundreds of times over a 40 year period.

http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/theriver/thedelaware.asp

Get your facts straight nitwit.

Posted by: rcubedkc | March 31, 2010 12:30 PM

This poll is stupid! Instead of the wide-open question "Should the government allow offshore drilling on America's coasts?" the poll should have asked "Do you support the recent move to allow drilling off VA and parts of the Gulf of Mexico".

Or it should have asked "do you support drilling in non-sensitive areas" or some other subset of "the whole enchilada".

Very few people support drilling ANYWHERE but most peopel support drilling in SAFER areas (i.e. not highly environmentally sensitive, beach-tourism, etc.)

Posted by: jsmith021961 | March 31, 2010 12:33 PM

Get your facts straight nitwit.

POSTED BY: RCUBEDKC | MARCH 31, 2010 12:30 PM

----

not sure if you realized i'm no wingnut, but great way to persuade others, dunce.

it's hippies like you that give liberals a bad name.

best luck with your tumors


Posted by: alarico | March 31, 2010 12:36 PM

As long as a Democrat wants drilling it's ok. If anyone in the GOP wants drilling then it's bad!

Posted by: Ralph_Indianapolis | March 31, 2010 12:38 PM

"The Atlantic coast is already filthy anyway."

I guess Alarico has never been to the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge - Class I wilderness and super-clean waters. It is part of a permanently undeveloped 21-mile section of the SC coast.

I guess Alarico has never been to to North Carolina Outer Banks.

Or places like St. Catherines Island, Ossabaw Island, etc. on the Georgia coast.

I could go on and on...

Posted by: jsmith021961 | March 31, 2010 12:39 PM

No Drilling!!! No Drilling!!! Save the planet from evil humans!!! Say "No!" to drilling!!!!!

Posted by: WildBill1 | March 31, 2010 12:49 PM

My American car runs better when the gas I put in it comes from drilling just off American shores!

Posted by: aspidistra | March 31, 2010 12:49 PM

I guess Alarico has never been to the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge

POSTED BY: JSMITH021961 | MARCH 31, 2010 12:39 PM
--

Nope, you're correct, I haven't. Never been to Georgia either (except the airport). I've been to Viginia Beach though-- disgusting! The Jersey shore-- no discussion needed there. The Outer Banks are nice, but didn't look like some pristine environment to me. Even "parks" like Assateague, Chincoteague, etc, don't have the cleanest waters-- I've been coated in oil swimming there. Delaware is one giant chemical plant. The suburban lawns of the DC metro area wash into the Potomac, then the Bay-- enjoy your Crabs a la Roundup-- then the ocean. What about those chicken plants in Delmarva?

It's not that I don't appreciate those places, or don't want clean beaches and uncontaminated fisheries, I do, but it's more like drilling seems just a drop in the bucket compared to the pollution we already dish out mercilessly.

I'm open to other points of view and additional information, of course-- I could change my mind-- but people who get all aggro with the swing voters on the issue won't convince me (or anyone, I think) to switch my viewpoints.

Posted by: alarico | March 31, 2010 1:06 PM

Kind of a mute point since we already drill offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. And the Norwegians have been doing it for decades in the North Sea - with no large incidents. Many of the critics of offshore drilling are Boomers (and their spawn) who reflexively protest anything to do with drilling. Drilling technology improves constantly - time to start living in the present.

Posted by: maus92 | March 31, 2010 1:11 PM

A few oil leases that won't be drilled for several years are merely shiny objects.

The real money is in our nation's huge flatulence output.

Posted by: johndenton46 | March 31, 2010 1:25 PM

Yes, especially I support drilling offshore California, whose boomers put up the biggest objection to any drilling anywhere.

Drill and pump oil until CA drastically cuts its own automobile use in that car-crazy state. Tired of them lobbying 'do as I say' not 'do as I do.'

Posted by: dave19 | March 31, 2010 1:29 PM


This is Oboma's concession to helping the Democrats who helped him by voting for the health care "reform" bomb.

So much for all the BS Oboma promised about clean and alternative energy.

Posted by: maphound | March 31, 2010 1:29 PM

There's just this one little thing that many disheartened Obama voters (including me) didn't count on -- a dangerous, potentially disastrous level of unemployment, and the oil rigs will provide thousands of new jobs. And these are not just jobs on the rigs, but jobs for whole communities -- schools, teachers, housing, services, etc.

Honestly, I don't think most of us realize how bad our unemployment levels really are -- we are in very bad shape peeps. There's another endless war going on, and it's economic -- right now China is on track to literally buy us out.

As well, I think the oil companies, going in, realize that any, even minor, spill would be devastating to them (needless to say for our coastline).

In my estimation, these leases and the revenue generated from them to the treasury will help us far more than it will damage us, and we need to think about that very carefully. No doubt 'Big Oil' is a heartless juggernaut, but we desperately need those jobs and the economic boost they will provide.

Right now I am hoping the president has researched this carefully and this move is, in fact, necessary.

I am still willing to give Obama room to prove this is the case, hopefully to soon be followed by an aggressive program boosting R&D in alternative energy and energy savings.

Posted by: Frank57 | March 31, 2010 1:31 PM

Offshore drilling is not the demon it is made out to be.

Is it the answer to our energy supply problems? Not a chance. Is it at least a stop-gap for our foreign oil dependency? Nope.

Does it provide domestic dollars and jobs? Yes.

And herein lies the rub. We should take advantage of our domestic resources, but realize that "drill baby drill" is a hyperbolic argument. Increased drilling will help, but it isn't the end-all and be-all answer.

Posted by: trident420 | March 31, 2010 1:32 PM


The joke is, this won't reduce the price that Americans pay for gas and heating oil by a single penny.

..

Posted by: DEFJAX | March 31, 2010 2:04 PM

I realize that if Iran made a hit, if they bombed an oil tanker that travels through the single most major oil water ways that nearly every ship travels out of the middle east, it would literally drive the price of a barrel of oil up to $150, overnight. If this happened now, it would cripple the USA.

Without a lot of fan fair I'll leave at this. I believe in the American people who are driving, educating and leading this country into a better, healthier, cleaner, more independent life style. I believe this is imminent. I wish Obama had made a more responsible and forward thinking decision. We have must greatly reduce our dependency on oil, starting NOW. Not very soon Mr. President, NOW.

I absolutely believe that the states that are fighting change, that are fighting to hold back technology, that that are only about themselves, a small handful of people whose drive is to maintain their power over us. Mary Landreau is one of the worst of the worst and next election cycle she will be voted out.

Posted by: nrk55 | March 31, 2010 2:07 PM

Well, I'm a left wingnut, but I think that people who drive several hundred miles to the beach ought to enjoy a view of technology that made it possible. And maybe, after a few oil spills on a South Carolina beach, our southern brothers will see that wind turbines are a better idea than oil.

Posted by: HookedOnThePost | March 31, 2010 2:07 PM

Think, don’t drill, baby.

Drilling off the mouth of the Chesapeake would be a punch in the mouth for the Bay.

The Obama Administration is reportedly planning to approve oil and gas exploration off of America’s East Coast, including the possible leasing bottom off of Virginia’s coast as soon as two years from now.

Offshore drilling off the Chesapeake and along the East Coast has long been banned by the federal government, and for good reasons. The potential for oil and chemical spills and environmental catastrophe is too great for a region that is ecologically on life support, and economically dependent on beaches, tourism and seafood.

In 2008, the Bush Administration lifted the executive branch’s prohibition on drilling along this coast. And then the U.S. House and Senate decided not to renew a Congressional ban that had been in place for more than 20 years.

Now the Obama Administration is looking to push ahead with this bad idea as part of a broader energy strategy that includes increasing the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks.

This makes no sense. America needs to break its addiction to oil. And you don’t break an addiction by increasing your supply. To make an analogy, if America had an alcohol problem, you wouldn’t solve the problem by hunting around for liquor stores where you could buy more and cheaper vodka.

Boosting the fuel efficiency of vehicles is a necessary step. But this effort to convince people to conserve fuel will be undermined if we simultaneously pillage our shorelines and foul our natural landscapes in a desperate scramble to make gas cheaper. The cheaper the gas, the less people care about fuel efficiency.

In a global sense, programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will never go anywhere if our country’s energy strategy is to exploit every last ounce of fossil fuel before we move on to cleaner power sources, such as wind and solar. Let’s start moving in this direction now.

More locally, what about the Chesapeake Bay? It would be hypocritical for President Obama to pledge a stronger federal effort to clean up the nation’s largest estuary (as he did last May) and at the same time open the gates for a giant pollution source at the entrance to the Bay.

Drilling would punch a huge hole in the Obama Administration’s Chesapeake Bay cleanup plan. And drilling would leave beautiful and fragile coastlines, such as those along Virginia Beach and Assateague Island, vulnerable to a future as black as oil.

Tom Pelton
Senior Writer, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
www.cbf.org/baydaily

Posted by: balto1 | March 31, 2010 2:12 PM

With all respect, This sort of decision made by the President of USA is totally ridiculous. inspite of all the global warming, climate change, earth quakes in sea's, ocean's etc, its totally unsafe decision made by Mr Obama. this will lead to even more drastic climatic changes and the worse of all will be shifting of the land above water and under water. Many warning's has been given scientifically.
i hope the taken will be revised by the leaders of the world.

Posted by: sujit_batchu | March 31, 2010 2:21 PM

Well, if the U.S. REALLY wanted to be energy independent and stimulate it's economy they would not pursue this path. Drilling for more oil only means you are tying yourself to vehicles that run on gas produced from oil. Since the U.S. consumes the most oil in the world and only has access to 3% of the oil reserves in the world, continuing to depend on engines that run on gas derived from oil is a plan to fail.

This is just an attempt to be bi-partisan and a sorry attempt at that. The U.S. will continue to depend on foreign oil since it is showing no desire to get off of oil. That means, the U.S. will continue to fund extremist who wish to cause harm to U.S. citizens and assets. Bowing down to the oil cartel is not the answer. It does not make the U.S. safe, it does not make the U.S. energy independent, it does not help the U.S. become the next middle east on energy. Pursuit of alternative fuels and alternative engines to run these fuels is the best way forward. It is even better for the environment.

The President succumbed to pressure, primarily from the two Senators, democrat Senators, from Virginia, Webb and Warner. They were all for drilling off the shores of Virginia.

Posted by: ajackson3 | March 31, 2010 2:28 PM

After the healthcare debacle, Obama should know appeasement doesn't work.

If a republican proposed the same thing, the GOP would cheer. Because it's Obama, they have already rejected it, saying it doesn't go far enough. That is their strategy. They have even rejected their own ideas once Obama supported them.

He should give up on trying to work with them. It just alienates the democratic base and weakens the proposal, with no gain from the other side.

Posted by: eeepc | March 31, 2010 3:02 PM

Look people, its simple. Right now we are too dependent on forgein oil. No body want a giant oil rig in their back yard. Yes we need to stop being dependent on oil in general, but we can't just stop while we are developing new sources of energy. From the shore you can't see more than about 10 miles, anyway. see the math on that here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2138577/posts

Posted by: schnauzer21 | March 31, 2010 3:15 PM

Eventually there will be no more oil anywhere. We should be hoarding our supply, and importing as much as we can get from less far-sighted countries.
And of course we should stop using oil for purposes that could be filled by other, replenishable, means.
I know, no one wants to plan for 50 years out. Too bad.

Posted by: merribanks | March 31, 2010 3:17 PM

Posted by: eburke2 "allow drilling in Alaska where the history shows no damage to the environment"? I guess you never heard of the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska that did monumental environmental damage, wrecked livelihoods and caused human illness including fatalities.
-----------------------
Guess you don't know the difference betewwen drilling and transporting. Besides, the offhsore rigs have underwater pipelines that go directly to the refineries, which actually cuts down the need for the transport ships.

Posted by: schnauzer21 | March 31, 2010 3:21 PM

More jobs? Get real, this will not have any impact for years. It will not reduce gas prices at the pump, ever. It can only serve to postpone the inevitable day of reckoning when we finally must enter detox to end our oil addiction.

Posted by: merribanks | March 31, 2010 3:22 PM

Do not confuse tanker spills with drilling accidents. Drilling rigs rarely cause environmental disasters because they do not hold massive volumes of oil and are equipped with blowout preventers and first response equipment. Instead of banning drilling, ban the tankers and force oil companies to use pipelines and offload oil far away from our beaches and shallow-water ecosystems.

Posted by: kcd531 | March 31, 2010 4:24 PM

This poll is absolutely ridiculous! No wonder poll results are so skewed. I am a died in the wool environmentalist and I realize that compromise is sometimes necessary. This also helps to show that no matter what our President does, the Republican party remains the Party of No.

Posted by: keisha10591 | March 31, 2010 4:39 PM

This is something our current Governor, both our Senators, and our last two Governors have pushed for. Starting with a limited area well off shore should provide a test of the available reserves, the environmental issues, etc. before opening up larger areas if prudent. Oil responds to a global market, but any gas finds should have a local energy impact. Time to give it a try.

Posted by: mgferrebee | March 31, 2010 4:47 PM

The writer is correct. Unfortunately, unless you want to drive your car in circles around the top of the platform, that oil has to get ashore. Historically most of the spills have come from the transportation, including ships and pipelines. And while the rigs may be 50 miles offshore, the tank farms and pipeline terminals will be right on the shore. If anyone has any doubt about this, go to the Texas or Louisiana coast and see the coastal footprint of offshore oil.
----------
Do not confuse tanker spills with drilling accidents. Drilling rigs rarely cause environmental disasters because they do not hold massive volumes of oil and are equipped with blowout preventers and first response equipment. Instead of banning drilling, ban the tankers and force oil companies to use pipelines and offload oil far away from our beaches and shallow-water ecosystems.

Posted by: baranof1 | March 31, 2010 5:06 PM

So President Hope 'N Change follows Sarah Palin's lead. His supporters must be having heart palpitations at all of his broken promises, backtracks and flip-flops.

Posted by: klick99 | March 31, 2010 5:33 PM

I did not vote because the "yes/no" options offered are too simplistic. My answer would be "not at this time." When oil moves upward of $200/bbl, then offshore and Alaskan fields must be considered as a part of the Strategic Reserve (and should probably be nationalized). One wonders, given that it takes a couple of years for such sites to become productive, whether the President knows something we don't regarding where the price of oil is heading. Chances are, however, that this is a political move, possibly to simultaneously put pressure on Iran and Venezuela while offering a carrot to Big Oil.

Posted by: patrickw9 | March 31, 2010 6:57 PM

So President Hope 'N Change follows Sarah Palin's lead. His supporters must be having heart palpitations at all of his broken promises, backtracks and flip-flops.
POSTED BY: KLICK99 | MARCH 31, 2010 5:33 PM

===

Pure lies. Obama has not reneged on his promises to chart a new energy course and work on renewable energy. Drilling does not negate that.

Drilling as all reasonable people know is only a minor supplement to the whole energy equation, not the solution for "energy independence" that McCain/Palin claimed it to be. It helps-- a little-- temporarily. That is all.

There's a lot of work to be done with renewable energy so that it can be viable at some point-- we can't toss oil out of the window today and expect the economy to run. Transitions like these are of an epic scale and they will take time.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill and creating absurd distortions with the truth. Palin! Nuts...

Posted by: alarico | March 31, 2010 7:00 PM


I used to live in Santa Barbara, where you can see the rigs from the beach. You cannot walk on the beach barefoot, your feet are just warm enough that the little lumps of tar stick to them.

A friend of mine recently told me there is a similar problem in Galveston.

NO to offshore drilling.

Posted by: dotellen | March 31, 2010 7:15 PM

Democrats,
The Independent Party welcomes you.

Now do you get it?

Posted by: dottydo | March 31, 2010 7:29 PM

Obama should be contracting with Haliburton to put up wells on these reserves, then contract with oil companies to operate them when we invade Venezuela.

Posted by: rpatoh | March 31, 2010 7:40 PM

The Galveston beach was like that when I was there. Wade in the water, tar on your legs. That was in 1987. I doubt if it is any better now, they have not stopped drilling.

Posted by: davidlav7 | March 31, 2010 7:54 PM

Trust no one to do the right thing, especially bureaucrats, politicians, and corporate misers.

Posted by: veerle1 | March 31, 2010 8:09 PM

Some Moron wrote:
Obviously, the best thing to do would be to allow drilling in Alaska where the history shows no damage to the environment"

CONVENIENTLY WHITEWASHES EXXON VALDEZ AND PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND!
Since that day I have not spent ONE RED CENT with Exxon and I will die NEVER HAVING SPENT ONE RED CENT on EXXON.

Posted by: TOMHERE | March 31, 2010 8:18 PM

About the only reason I can see for him allowing this is to hold out an olive branch to the "Blue Dog" Dems & the GOP. I don't believe they'd accept it as anything other than a sign of his weakness. We ought to be concentrating on getting the fossil fuel monkey off our country's back-not making it worse: Let's see real funding of the National Renewable Energy Lab & the programs at NASA for solar power from space. The discoveries from these labs would jump start new businesses & get Americans back to work!

Posted by: clevin | March 31, 2010 8:50 PM

We need to drill everywhere oil can be found, why not, or do you want the Chinese drilling, how about the russian, or perhap the North Korean, I want the proven technology of American company doing the drilling, not companies from around the world with some of the worst safety records anywhere. In 5 years or less we could be a crude oil exporter and an importer. What do you want our money going oversea or overseas money coming here.

Posted by: twomullens | March 31, 2010 9:20 PM

Even if we have to drill for oil off Pacific Heights, where Speaker Pelosi has a mansion, we need domestic oil.

Posted by: sperrico | March 31, 2010 9:38 PM

until the Energy fairy comes along and waves his/her magic wand so we can immediately convert to those wonderful green and clean renewable fuels, we are going to have to use existing technology and energy source, which mean fossil fuels and nuclear.

It is likely to take a couple decades or more until renewables are scalable and affordable on a massive basis. Until then we should be exploring how to make as much of the fossil fuels we use from our own territories and not the Middle East. What is so hard to understand you dance with the date who brought you to the prom before ditching him/her for than great looking guy/girl standing in the corner surrounded by a hundred other suitors.

Posted by: bobfbell | March 31, 2010 9:49 PM

I think everyone here who believes that their great great grandpa was a relative of KingKong (evolutionists or Dems) is opposed to drilling.

They have no idea that oil is a non-renewable resource and whether they like it or not, it would be replaced by cleaner, and cheaper renewable alternatives. Drill it before it becomes obsolete.

There are lots of good reasons why we should allow these drilling.

It's refreshing to think that Obama can sometimes break-away from the leftist idiots.

Posted by: spidermean2 | March 31, 2010 10:54 PM

welcome to :===== http://www.smalltrade.net ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $16

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,) $25

FREE sHIPPING

====== http://www.smalltrade.net ====

Posted by: itkonlyyoul | March 31, 2010 11:20 PM

The oil won't come on line for many years--decades if there are lawsuits-- and the production will be so small that it won't affect prices.

Better to take all the money that would go toward this boondoggle and put it towards conservation measures and research into real, sustainable energy projects.

Posted by: dgloo | March 31, 2010 11:53 PM

I think the federal government should largely disengage from this issue and allow the states to make the determinations for themselves -- for better or for worse.

If a state chooses to allow offshore drilling, the state's budget will be infused with royalties and the price of oil will be driven downward nationally and internationally. (This will help the US economy and hurt the economies of many rogue nations)

Conversely, that state government will be held accountable for prevention / cleanup of spills by the state's voters and by other nearby states.

Posted by: JT61 | April 1, 2010 1:06 AM

While not quite what is needed; it is a start in the right direction. The problem is that most of our off shore oil is closer than 50 miles. So BFD. This country needs to get off it's collective butt and start using our natural resources. We need to take the hundreds of billions of dollars that we spend on forign oil and natural gas and start spending it here in the US. We need jobs! Importing oil and gas does not create jobs. This country has enough oil and natural gas reserves to enable us to stop exporting dollars. The Gorons will claim that this field only has a 6 month supply and that field only has a 5 week supply. They have been impeding exploration and extraction for decades using this lame argument. Prudhoe Bay was delayed for 15 years. It has been providing on average over 1 million barrels of oil a day since the pipeline was finally opened 30 years ago. Thats money retained and jobs created in the US. The EPA has stopped the oil leasing process until 2014. Why? And more importantly, since when did the EPA have the authority to stop oil leases?We have huge oil reserves, as big as Saudi Arabia, right here in the US. Why are we buying oil from the Middle East? We have enough proven Natural Gas reserves to last us until someboddy actually comes up with a new clean energy. Why are we importing natural gas?

Posted by: nosuchluck | April 1, 2010 1:30 AM

I don't trust anything this administration does. I suspect this is a ploy to help push their cap and trade plan. Obama will say he compromised but the republicans just don't want to cooperate, when, in reality, we know he isn't giving much here and cap and trade will be a total disaster. He also isn't doing anything today, he's just indicating this might lead to some leasing possibilities in a couple of years. So much for keeping focus on jobs.

Posted by: termiteavenger | April 1, 2010 2:29 AM

According to the US Dept. of Energy, even as it existed under George W Bush (all oil business cronies)...if we were to drill every square inch of America, all we'd get - and we won't see the oil for 20 to 30 years from now - is a few months supply. We use 25% of the world's oil, but only have about 1% of it under our lands. Drilling isn't going to solve anything.

Posted by: wilder5121 | April 1, 2010 2:38 AM

Drilling should be allowed.

With provisions that drilling companies carry insurance that would compensate for any loses that states or individuals might incur if there was a spill.

A provision that payouts would be fast tracked to pay for any loses, 1 year max.

After the exxon valdez spill many people were forced out of business and exxon has never paid for the total cost of the cleanup or loss of business.

I hope that our government learned a lesson from that tragedy.

Posted by: rlkidd58 | April 1, 2010 4:25 AM

Oil is old technology. It's not just foreign oil we need to be free of, it's oil use all together. It's to scarce, to expensive, and to dirty. We as a country should mobilize and come together the way we did for WW 2, and to put a man on the moon, and when we built the interstate highway system, and set a goal to be using renewable energy sources for all our fuel needs. We have the technology, we just need the will, and the commitment, and the desire to do what's best for the country and not just what's best fo those who benefit from our continued addiction to oil.

Dennis Shaw
Richmondville NY

Posted by: dshaw1 | April 1, 2010 7:21 AM

This isn't a jobs decision. It's a death and destruction decision. Completely wrong-headed, misguided!

Expanded drilling increases the risk of catastrophic oil spills that can decimate commercial fisheries, wreck tourist economies and destroy vital habitat for shore birds and sea turtles. Oil spills also kill sea birds and other marine life directly through oiling and poisoning by ingestion as animals try to clean themselves and toxins are absorbed from the fish birds eat.

This decision does *nothing* to curb our dependence on fossil fuels and threatens the health of coastal waters. Endangered North Atlantic right whales, polar bears and other precious wildlife rely on these waters for their survival.

Now, more than ever, it is urgent that the president supports comprehensive climate and energy legislation to address harmful climate change and meet America’s energy needs in a clean and sustainable manner without sacrificing our ocean waters or furthering our dependence on dirty drilling and fossil fuels that contribute to climate change.

The administration’s desire to expand oil drilling risks the health of marine wildlife, fisheries and coastal economies. It continues to expand our dependence on fossil fuels at a time when we need to reduce our dependence in order to address the harmful impacts of global warming.

This decision signs the death warrants for so many species -- including humans.

Posted by: alb2 | April 1, 2010 8:40 AM

A Brazilian Oil Baron was Interviewed By Charlie Rose a Few Weeks Ago, and he said...

"I don't Understand why Americans are not Driving Electric Cars"

Note: Keep in mind Brazil Cars are Sugar-Cane Oil, Their Crude Oil Independent and Sale their Crude Oil to Us [The USA].

Contrary to what You Pro-Drill For Oil People, No Matter Where we Drill, their will be No Immediate Oil to the USA, when it is Discovered and Brought to Market, it will Not be Sold To America 1st, it will be Sold to The International Markets, to such Countries as [China & India]

Keep in Mind, there are [No Federal Law] Forbidding Oil Corporations to Keep the Newly Discovered Oil in the USA, Let Me Repeat this, There are No [Federal Law] Forbidding Big Oil Corporations form Selling their Oil to the International Markets.

So All You "Drill Here, Drill Now & Will Lower Prices People, Watch the Oil Market [Stock] Go Up and Your Gas Pump Prices as well.

It will Soon Dispel The Republican Party Campaign Slogan, Since 2008-NOW

_____________


Note: There's only 5 Type Cars Americans should be Driving, To Become Oil Independent...

1. Electric Cars

2. Hybrid-Natural Gas

3. Diesel: Trucks, Vans, Jeeps, SUV's & Trucks.

4. Hybrid-Diesel: [BlueTec Engines]

5. Natural Gas Vehicles

This would have an Immediate and Everlasting Impact on our Nation's Dependence On Foreign Oil Suppliers, Not Drilling for Oil that will take 10 Years to Come to Market, Only to be Sold to the Highest International Bidder [China-India] 2 Billion People Plus.

No Matter where we Drill, it will take 10 Years to Come to Market

[Reality]

Posted by: omaarsblade | April 1, 2010 12:07 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company