CQ TODAY PRINT EDITION
June 16, 2008 – 4:02 p.m.
Democrats Try ‘Use It or Lose It’ Oil Argument
By Coral Davenport, CQ Staff
After being pummeled by Republicans for opposing efforts to open more areas to offshore drilling, Democrats have shifted gears and are blaming energy companies for not fully exploiting the domestic oil and gas reserves they already control.
House and Senate Democrats are complaining that U.S. oil companies are not drilling on 68 million acres of leased federal land and waters.
“At a time when our constituents are paying $4 per gallon at the pump, the answer is to make sure that oil companies are producing on the land they currently own,” four leading House Democrats wrote in a letter to colleagues. “They need to either use it or lose it.”
The four House Democrats — Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, chairman of the Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee; Natural Resources Chairman Nick J. Rahall II of West Virginia; Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois; and Maurice D. Hinchey of New York — said they will introduce a bill that would raise lease fees for oil companies not drilling on leases they hold.
They also said they will cosponsor an existing bill (
Democrat Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut has introduced similar legislation (
“The vast majority of oil and natural gas resources on federal lands are already open for drilling, and they are not being tapped,” Dodd said June 12 on the Senate floor. “I hear complaints about the 1.5 million acres closed off in ANWR [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge], and yet we are sitting on roughly 68 million acres under lease but not in production — why don’t they talk about that?”
Don Young of Alaska, top Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee and a leading advocate of more drilling, said the House Democrats’ bill would do nothing to increase domestic production.
“There’s an abundance of irony surrounding this bill and the gentlemen who introduced it,” Young said. “Oil companies with federal leases already have very defined time limits to produce oil or natural gas on existing leases. If the companies do not produce on those leases within the time limit, they will lose their lease.”
The Democrats’ stance marks a shift in talking points for the party. Democrats typically have argued that the United States can’t drill its way out of energy dependence and have stressed conservation over production.
Public Support for Exploration
Republicans have long argued that the United States should boost domestic production by opening Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and new areas off the U.S. shores to oil and gas exploration, and polling suggests growing public support for that position. A survey in May by Zogby International found that 65 percent of Americans support drilling for oil off U.S. coastlines and 52 percent back drilling in the Arctic Refuge.
That puts Democrats hoping to make big election year gains in a tricky position; but trying to direct voter anger at oil companies appears to be a relatively safe strategy.
Democrats Try ‘Use It or Lose It’ Oil Argument
According to a Gallup Poll published June 13, 60 percent of Americans assign a great deal of blame for higher gasoline prices to the oil companies. That was a larger share than blamed either Congress or the Bush administration.
Oil geologists say the Democratic legislation ignores the long-term realities of oil leasing, which takes years of studies to find and drill for reserves.
When federal land or waters are leased to oil companies in parcels of about 1,000 to 3,000 acres, usually for 10 years, there is typically just “a very general sense of the value of the land,” said Larry Nation, a spokesman for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Only some portions of leased land may hold accessible oil, while other portions do not, Nation said, but companies must continue to lease the entire parcel.
“There’s the misconception that every lease has oil,” added David Curtiss, director of the association’s Washington office. “A lease is a line on a map. It has nothing to do with the geology of where oil is.”
Young, meanwhile, called it “most ironic” that Markey, Hinchey and Emanuel were “even attempting to talk about increasing America’s energy production.”
“That they are attempting to make it appear as if they are for domestic energy production is baffling to me,” Young said. “Barely one month ago, Mr. Markey and Mr. Hinchey voted against my provision to open [the Arctic Refuge] for production.”
Comments
Why would Maurice do that? Since he's also calling for nationalizing the oil companies I mean... http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/18/good-news-another-democrat-calls-for-nationalizing-the-oil-industry/ Video at link. Seems odd to make requirements for a business sector than you plan on completely taking over as part of Government anyhow.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: