The media's ongoing refusal to question Bobby Jindal about his sponsorship of the 2006 DOER Act is an excellent example of the corporate media narrative at work. President Obama is being portrayed as inactive and out of touch, while Jindal is portrayed as saving the environment and protecting Lousiana. Whatever does not fit this narrative is censored and dismissed.
The reality is that Jindal has been one of the most strident advocates of the Petroleum industry. Here is the conservative Heritage Group's defense of offshore oil drilling and the DOER Act.
Why won't the media even ask Jindal about his sponsorship of the Act designed to facilitate the activites that lead to the current disaster?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/06/The-Deep-Ocean-Energy-Resources-Act-of-2006-State-Control-Increased-Supply-and-Lower-Prices
Common Criticisms Are Off the Mark
The DOER Act has a great deal of common sense on its side. In these times of high energy prices and political uncertainty in so many oil producing nations, America should make better use of its own substantial energy resources. And allowing each coastal state to decide its own drilling policy is far more equitable than the current one-size-fits-all federal ban on drilling in new areas. Nonetheless, the bill has substantial opposition. Their most frequently repeated criticisms are off the mark:
Myth: Drilling poses great risks of oil spills. The last major offshore oil spill in America occurred off of Santa Barbara in 1969. Critics of offshore drilling still refer to this incident, but much has changed in the interim. Drilling technology has greatly advanced in recent decades, and any new drilling will have to comply with strict safeguards that did not exist then.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, "mproved production technology and safety training of personnel have dramatically reduced both blowouts and daily operational spills." <2> Currently, only 1 percent of oil in North American waters came from offshore oil wells, far less than that attributable to natural seepage from the sea floor. <3> Hurricane Katrina provided another reminder that fears of oil spills are overblown and anachronistic: Despite 170-mile-per-hour winds and massive waves striking many platforms, there was not a single significant offshore oil spill. <4>
Myth: The bill would break the budget resolution. The DOER Act would split between participating states and the federal government offshore revenues that currently go only to the federal government. The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) initial analysis of the bill concluded that, over the next 10 years, $11 billion in federal revenues would be lost.<5> For this reason, the Bush Administration and others raised concerns that the bill would break the budget resolution and increase the deficit. In response, the sponsors of the bill reduced the revenues going to states, which are now projected by CBO to cost to $3 billion over 10 years.
To be sure, under DOER, a smaller proportion of the current offshore revenues would go to Washington. However, by opening up new areas, the DOER Act will, over time, lead to increased production. Depending on the amount of new energy produced, the federal government may not lose future revenues, and states will certainly gain them.
Notwithstanding the impact on federal offshore revenues, the DOER Act will also result in increased individual and corporate income tax receipts from an expanding oil and gas industry. CBO ignored this revenue. And most important of all are the overall economic benefits of lower oil and natural gas prices. This is particularly true of natural gas because U.S. natural gas prices are higher than those in most of the rest of the world and several natural gas-dependent industries like chemicals and fertilizer production have already been forced overseas.
Myth: Americans won't benefit from new drilling. Critics focus on the very low end of the range of estimated resources in restricted areas and also point out that drilling in non-restricted areas continues unimpeded. But even the low-end estimates-19 billion barrels of oil and 84 trillion cubic feet of natural gas-represent a substantial increase in domestic energy production. In tight oil and gas markets, like those of recent years, even modest additions of supply can make a significant difference in prices.
While true that drilling in the central and western Gulf continues, the persistently high prices of oil and natural gas are strong evidence that current (and expected future) production from these non-restricted areas is limited and unlikely to be enough to provide price relief. Simply put, America must make better use of the oil and gas available to it to impact prices-and that includes drilling in the vast areas currently off limits. This is particularly true given that demand for energy is expected to increase by 1 percent annually in the decades ahead.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
