Oil exploration may be on horizon for Georgia

Register now, it's free!
Log In | Customer Care

Oil exploration may be on horizon for Georgia
Bipartisan Senate effort would let several states allow drilling 50 miles off shores

By MARILYN GEEWAX, STACY SHELTON
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 08/02/08

With the Senate at an impasse over oil drilling, five Democrats and five Republicans led by Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) stepped forward Friday to offer a compromise for solving the nation's energy problems.

[ Submit your comments below. ]

Ric Francis/AP

(ENLARGE)

A ship and an offshore drilling rig are in the background of a Huntington Beach, Calif., beach.

• Oil drilling debate: fear vs. advances in technology

• More Nation/World News
• Nation/World Photo Galleries

Their proposal would let Georgia, the Carolinas and Virginia permit drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf off their coastlines and open up parts of the Gulf of Mexico. It also would promote conservation and help pay for the transition to alternative fuels and more efficient technologies.

The bipartisan coalition, calling itself the "Gang of 10," began assembling six weeks ago, said Chambliss, who initiated the effort. Chambliss, who is running for re-election this year, said he reached out to key Democrats because "it was pretty obvious there are a lot of common areas we agree on."

Congress must find a way to pass legislation to reduce energy prices, because "we are certainly in a crisis," Chambliss said at a news conference.

The Gang of 10 wants Congress to relax the federal moratorium on seeking and producing oil and natural gas offshore while making a far greater effort to move the country away from oil dependence.

The 10 senators did not offer specific legislation, but rather a framework for compromises. They want staffers to hammer out legislative language for what they dubbed the "New Energy Reform Act" during the five-week congressional recess, which began Friday.

When they return in September, the senators plan to hold a summit where lawmakers can plan a quick way forward for the bill, rather than rely upon the slow committee process.

"We're open for discussion" about what to include in the legislation, Chambliss said. "We're very hopeful" it could get done this year, he said.

Gang of 10 member Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said lawmakers will be motivated once they spend time talking with constituents about gasoline prices. "The driving force is the price of gas," he said.

In the House, a similar plan for bipartisan cooperation on energy was unveiled Thursday by Rep. Neil Abercromie (D-Hawaii) and Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.). Chambliss said he was aware of their efforts, but he has not yet begun trying to work with them.

But as Congress' summer business drew to a close, many senators and House members appeared far from being ready to jump aboard the bipartisan peace train.

In fact, the feuding was so severe in the House that Republicans, including Reps. Lynn Westmoreland of Coweta County and Tom Price of Roswell, refused to leave the chamber.

A small group of disgruntled Republicans kept making speeches, demanding that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hold an emergency session this month to vote on drilling.

"Bring the Congress back," said Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). "Let's have a real up-or-down vote."

The Gang of 10's Senate proposal has three main components. It would:

• Boost domestic energy production by giving the legislatures of Georgia, the Carolinas and Virginia the power to permit oil drilling 50 miles off their shores. It also would open more of the Gulf of Mexico to drilling and encourage the expansion of nuclear power and other types of energy.

• Provide tens of billions of dollars for research and development of alternative energy technologies. It would help auto companies with retooling and give consumers tax credits for buying fuel-efficient vehicles.

• Boost conservation through new tax credits and research funding.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a group member who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, said the $84 billion cost of the proposals would be offset by cutting oil and gas companies' current tax breaks.

Chambliss said the group avoided hot-button issues such as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or cracking down on oil speculation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) issued a statement saying the group had put forth "some very good ideas" and praised the "bipartisan spirit."

Still, getting a majority to agree on drilling may be very difficult. Chambliss, Isakson and Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue all support drilling.

But Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) issued a statement saying the Gang of 10's plan wouldn't fly in his state because it does not give the Legislature control over the drilling.

"Unfortunately, the proposal would eliminate Florida's 2006 Gulf protections and give Floridians absolutely no voice in determining where exploration could occur," he said.

This week, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne announced a new plan to offer offshore drilling leases in currently banned areas, including Georgia, as early as 2012 if Congress lifts the ban. A 45-day public comment period on the proposal started Friday.

According to the Interior Department, the banned areas contain 18 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in "yet-to-be-discovered fields."

But Jim Henry, a semiretired coastal geologist, recently told the Savannah Morning News that surveys and drilling by oil companies in the 1970s, before the activity was banned, didn't turn up anything promising. "They just kind of gave up on finding any quantitative results," Henry said.

Georgia's environmental groups oppose offshore drilling.

Georgia Conservancy Vice President Patty McIntosh, who works on the coast, said there's a "misconception" that offshore means the coastline will be unaffected.

In Louisiana, on-shore and near-shore infrastructure to support drilling rigs has "ripped the marshland to shreds," she said. "We as a state have declared our coastal marshlands and estuaries as valuable resources. Why would we do something that is so short-sighted with the risk of compromising those?"

Lindsay Thomas, senior vice president of governmental affairs for Atlanta-based AGL Resources, parent of Atlanta Gas Light, said the company believes the moratorium should be lifted.

Thomas, a former congressman whose district included the Georgia coast, said individual states should be able to decide whether they want to drill off of the coastline.

But "nobody can do anything as long as you have this monstrous federal moratorium," he said.

— Staff writer Kristi E. Swartz contributed to this article.

Vote for this story!

Related Subjects

Expand this list

Comments

By Sternberg

Aug 4, 2008 10:31 PM | Link to this

If you think their profit margins are sinful, buy the stock. 9% profit is a sin at Exxon, apparently, but would not keep your average Mom and pop store open for a month.

By whatacrock

Aug 3, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this

Uh not quite. Depends on what part of the article you are talking about. Definitely not the title. A combination of some of what this guy says is good. But please, don't let big oil off the hook in the name of the failure of the energy policy of the 70's. The profit margines are gigantic - way, way more than the profit margines of the 70's. The fact is they could do so much more to help the average american and the reality is that their profit margine is sinful. You have to admit, just plain sinful.

Notice when they have held hearings, there has not been one exec to say, you know, people this is just not right. Lets help out here. The shell exec came real close and even gave a little more of a plan but still didn't get at it.

By jwatl

Aug 3, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

For whatacrock: is this what you want, and would prescribe for America??

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080803_Back_Channels__On_energy__Democrats_in_office_means_a_return_to_the_1970s_.html

By to the writers

Aug 3, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

WHY CAN'T YOU REPORT A STORY WITHOUT SHOWING YOUR EXTREME LIBERAL LEANINGS.
YOU INSERT A PICTURE OF AN OIL RIG RIGHT
NEXT TO THE COAST- YET THE STORY CLEARLY
STATES THAT DRILLING IS TO OCCUR ON THE
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.WE CAN'T BELIEVE
ANY STORY BECAUSE OF YOUR PREJUDICE.

By whatacrock

Aug 3, 2008 8:30 AM | Link to this

This is to jwatti. Look answering your questions does not get at the if we should drill question. The "real" profit margins are glutinous considering we are in a "Godfearing" nation. This is just real simple. George and the republican congress and senate for years passed laws that would give big oil tax breaks, for years. And we are the fools for it. This is a fact. He padded his own pocket and the pocket of chaney and his other texas big oil friends. And big oil paid our congress and senate handsomely. Those are facts!

And now big oil is trying to get control of the democratic leadership and it ain't working - thus far.

The answer to the immediate gas prices, and I mean immediate is not in drilling. I am willing to consider long term. But immediately there is but one answer. George needs to tax big oil for the difference in the amount that we are now paying for a gallon of gas than two or three years ago. And you do the math and understand that they could have a really good profit even if they paid a tax of $1.00 per gallon for every gallon used. And probably even more.

Drilling is not the issue here. It is glutenous waste. If you make 2-300,000 per year well this economy ain't affecting you in the least. During Bush, if you make that much you have done great. If you are in the middle class and lower class, you are worse off. Now why in blazes can't our republican leadership understand this! At heart I am a republican. But drilling more is not the answer.

And to answer your question about the 2 years since the congress became a democratic majority - the dems are not the problem - it is the policies that the republicans developed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer - go and look at that statistics. But now we ALL need to do something about it! We in the middle class are having to pay and I am simply saying that the rich need to pay as well. Trickle down economics is deader than a door nail!

By D Owen

Aug 2, 2008 8:28 PM | Link to this

Drilling offshore and later producing offshore will be invisible to those who are onshore. Lets face it there is a 50 mile buffer, but the actual reservoirs may be 100 or even 200 miles offshore. The big challenge facing oil & gas operators and oilfield service companies will be the support bases to provide a continuous flow of essential supplies. Drilling requires a wide range of services, creating a large number of high paying jobs to local residents. Later, the production of oil and gas will require a pipeline network to bring the product onshore, again boosting the local economy. if Georgia is so fortunate to have commercial reservoirs offshore, both Georgia and the entire US will benefit.

Foreign oil represents 70% of our petroleum imports but that doesn't mean that 70% of our gasoline or diesel come from foreign oil. A lot goes into plastics and synthetics. When you fill up your vehicle think about those states that have sacrificed their environment to go through the long learning curve of 'how to' drill and produce in an ecologically responsible manner. Georgia and all other states will be the beneficiary of states like Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and California.

Sure we may be extending the life of petroleum. Its a natural resource that is limited. But lets face it, we cannot replace petroleum products from our lives like turning off a light switch. Oh yeah, that light switch is made from petroleum based plastic. Plus 90% of the things in the home. So lets stop thinking about just the SUV and start to focus on the long term solution. Its going to take an all out press on all domestic fronts to make our country secure and no longer dependent on foreign oil.

I think its a good thing for Georgia and for the US. Lets do this in a responsible ecological manner, and give alternatives the time to make a difference.

By jwatl

Aug 2, 2008 5:30 PM | Link to this

Hon John Barrow (D)

Hon Sanford Bishop Jr. (D)

Hon Hank Johnson (D)

Hon John Lewis (D)

Hon Jim Marshall (D)

Hon David Scott (D)

As each of you campaign for votes during your FIVE WEEK �RECESS�, would ask you share answers to the following questions with your constituents:

� What is the estimate of job losses from the lack of an energy policy from the US Congress?
� What percent of the increase in inflation constituents have suffered in the last 12 months is due to increased fuel prices � both direct (fuel for tanks), and indirect (food stuffs, services, air travel)?
� Of all of the talk of �Oil Company Profits�, what was the real profit margin, and of that margin, what was the dollar amount that will be paid to the Federal Government in taxes; and what was the dollar amount devoted to exploration?
� What is the rationale for the majority party�s continued reliance on foreign oil, when we have shale, coal and an abundance of proven reserves within the US boundaries?
� What was the rationale of the majority party�s decision to leave Washington without at least bringing offshore drilling to a vote on the floor of the House? Is the majority party so in lock step with the Speaker that the use of logic for your constituents is secondary in your thought process?
� Have you researched the impact of high energy costs of small and medium sized businesses within your own districts? If so, what is the impact in terms of their profits and hiring abilities? If you have not conducted such research, WHY NOT?
� How many small and medium size businesses could fail by the end of this year if there is not some hope of relief at the pump � within your own districts? How do you justify your lack of action given what you learned from your �research�?
� Why should your constituents vote for you in November, when you have not voted for them in 2007 and 2008 to cause us to become energy independent?
� The point was made by the media on August 2, 2008, that Florida may be in a recession due to lack of tourists this season. For your friends to the south in Florida, what is your best estimate of individuals from your district who were unable to travel to Florida for a vacation this year, due to high energy prices? Would appreciate you sharing your findings with Congressman Wexler (Dem, Florida).
� There is an old Chinese proverb that says, �A journey of a thousand miles begins with a first step.� When will the majority party take the first step towards the US becoming energy independent � including the use of ALL sources of energy?

Thank you in advance for your timely and, no doubt insightful, responses. Will be looking forward to your straight forward answers. You do owe answers to your constituents.

By LS

Aug 2, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this

I find it interesting the comments in response to this article are opposed to taking all the necessary steps to address the price of energy today because everyone I talk to wants everything and anything on the table at this point. For every argument against drilling offshore, expanding exploration and drilling in Alaska, nuclear energy expansion, and the like there are dozens of arguments in favor. I wish everyone would take a deep breath, slow down and really do some research including reading/hearing differing points of view on the issues we face today. Exploring all possible options and using compromise are the best approach to solving these problems.

By P Larrain

Aug 2, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

Until Americans are paying a lot more for automobile fuel, we will keep wasting these limited and unsustainable reserves. We must go on a diet and stop feeding our monstrous craving for the earth's dying resources. On the other hand, there is no reason we should not explore alternatives that do not affect us in other negative ways...i.e. biofuel from corn that taks away from food stores. An educated nation must find ways to preserve the present as well as the future, for our own sake and the existence of a livable sustainable future for our children and their's. How can we continue to be so selfish? We must eat what grows within 100 miles of our regions, and become more independent. We might consider alternate forms of transpsortation such as scooters and bicycles for work and living related functions; and, inevitably change our lifestyles if we wish NOT to bring ourselves to the brink of extinction. We have exploited this planet and the peoples' of the planet far too long. Scientists tell us that if we stop NOW digging into our unsustainable resources wwe cannot reverse the damage done. We are killing the earth that sustains us, and now we pay the price. Please think: what can "I"/"you" do to change the fast-coming future of famine, homelessness, floods and droughts that plague us already? Can you reduce your personal carbon footprint? Yes, but not unless you want to and are willing to investigate on your own. Thank you for allowing me these comments.

By julia

Aug 2, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

well from what I have heard, the rest of the world is going to do it and we cant stop them

[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8] next