"I would like to know why we should think that any drilling whatsoever would occur in the NEW lease areas when the oil companies already have lots of off-shore leases where they are able to drill but, to date, have not."

I believe that's what Obama and the 5 Dems are counting on. That in the end the oil companies won't drill in those protected areas anyway so they won't really be giving up anything, and in the end will just get lease money and what they want anyway. And the real money to pay for all of this will come from cutting the 30+ billion in tax breaks the oil companies get now.

But, I am still confused. I would like to know why we should think that any drilling whatsoever would occur in the NEW lease areas when the oil companies already have lots of off-shore leases where they are able to drill but, to date, have not. In other words, something smells in Demnark, me thinks.

To pay for their proposal, lawmakers would raise the major oil companies' taxes by excluding them from tax credits that apply to other manufacturers.

The Gang of 10 proposal would encourage states to allow drilling off their shores by sharing some of the federal offshore royalty revenues with the states.

The bill will require opening additional areas for development in the Gulf of Mexico and allow drilling off the coasts of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, incumbent on approval from those states. Any drilling activity approved by the states would be done at least 50 miles from shore. A commission would also be created recommending areas for leasing in the future.

But unlike the other four states, Florida would not get a choice on whether to allow drilling off its coasts.

In compromise to the offshore drilling proposal, the bill provides billions of dollars of research and development money to assist US automakers in achieving the goal of transitioning 85% of all new vehicles to run on alternative, non-petroleum based fuels within 20 years. The Senators propose paying for the spending by eliminating $30 billion in tax breaks for energy companies and requiring that the federal government get its cut of revenue from Gulf of Mexico oil leases. U.S. consumers will receive tax breaks up to $7500 for buying vehicles that run on alternative fuels.

A very important element of the legislation is the extension of tax breaks for renewable energy development and energy efficiency to 2012, something congress has thus far been unable to do in this session.

Basically they are going to use the Oil Companies to pay for changing the country over to renewable energy. Considering we export millions of barrels of gasoline already, any oil we don't use the Oil companies could just export to the world (China/India) and bring some of our wealth back to the US.

I am certainly all for compromise and I agree with you, wholeheartedly, that many people have indeed become too rigidly partisan and wedded to their ideology to see the truth of any matter anymore.

I don't know enough about the so-called 'gang of 10' and their compromise energy bill to say much more. You wouldn't by any chance have a quick link to what's in it, would you. If not, I'll just take some time and check into it a little further.

"I predict that Obama will sign off on off shore leasing at some point… in a compromise deal that will result in major funding of alternative energy projects. That's why he supported the 2005 Energy bill.

People need to get over their far one sided politics."

http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2008/07/17/defining-post-partisan/

Elixabeth wrote:

"As for off-shore oil leasing…if Obama supports NEW leases for off-shore drilling, then that will demonstrate to me that he does not understand this issue. Frankly, I don't believe he will support NEW off-shore drilling"
____

The thing is, he understands the issue just fine. And he's just set up the Republicans to be obstructionists and made himself into the bi-partisan candidate.

From Huffington Post:

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage _ I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

In Congress, both parties have fought bitterly over energy policy for weeks, with Republicans pressing for more domestic oil drilling and Democrats railing about oil company profits. Despite hundreds of hours of House and Senate floor debate, lawmakers will leave Washington for their five-week summer hiatus this week with an empty tank.

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the Post interview. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

Later, Obama issued a written statement warmly welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators _ five from each party. Their proposal seeks to break the impasse over offshore oil development and is expected to be examined more closely in September after Congress returns from its summer recess.

The so-called Gang of 10 plan would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, but retain an environmental buffer zone extending 50 miles off Florida's beaches and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast. The states would share in revenues from oil and gas development.

Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise.

The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.

"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

Nevertheless, Obama said the plan, put forward by mostly moderates and conservatives led by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., "represents a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning."

Earlier in the day, Obama pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to McCain's call for more offshore drilling.

The pitch for putting some of the economic burden of $4-a-gallon gasoline on the oil industry served a dual purpose for Obama: It allowed him to talk up an economic issue, seen by many as a strength for Democrats and a weakness for Republicans, and at the same time respond to criticism from McCain that Obama's opposition to offshore drilling leads to higher prices at the pump.
____________

He can paint McCain as being a rigid partisan while can show that Obama is willing to work together to get things done. If the Republicans fight the compromise plan they won't have much to stand on. They will be painted as in the pocket of big oil, obstructionists, and not really willing to get things done.

I knew Obama would go this route because he's been like this his entire career. He looks at an issue from both sides, and is willing to compromise to get a solution both sides can agree on. The problem with our government right now is people have become rigidly partisan and view "compromise" as caving in.

Which is completely stupid because no one can do that in their regular life. Anyone who is married knows that everything is a compromise.

From my perspective, I believe the Democrats have a better long term vision and should be emphasizing that we need a long term strategy that is different from the past 8 years.

If you're out there, how do you feel about the issue? What do you like/dislike about both sides' arguments? If you could write Obama's energy policy what would it be?

Very curious.

You knocked it out of the park here. Been thinking about this for a while and I can't agree with you more that part of the Republican strategy is to focus the election on a single issue where they believe the majority of people agree with them.

And while I believe it's true that we can't "drill our way out of this" the more convincing frame is that of the Republicans. They keep it simple and all the Democrats seem to do is counter with long-winded explanations.

I have talked with many Republicans and Independents and most of them see it this way.

The Republican frame is:

- The cause of high oil prices is low supply
- We need to increase the supply to lower prices

At the very least, Republicans and Independents I know will say: Why not both drill and move towards energy independence?

If viewed this way, they then see Democrats as obstructing part of the solution.

@Elizabeth and fstanley: There's some good frames in both your replies.

- "Reduce our dependency on foreign oil" really resonated with me
- Liked the analogy of eating right and exercising daily - it speaks to a long term solution and is a nice frame people can relate too

I don't have any easy answers on this either. Coming up with a short, concise frame is one of the hardest things to do though it seems so simple. Here's a couple thoughts:

1. Reframe the problem as "increasing demand" rather than lack of supply.
2. Reset the energy vision for this country: "We want to lead the world in developing alternative energies. This is a tremendous economic opportunity for our country."
3. Republicans are missing the boat on this opportunity by focusing solely on drilling. This is not a viable strategy. This is the same policy we've had for 8 years. (Implication: where has it gotten us?)

Great post and discussion, Chris!
- David

“When you first hear the idea "let's allow offshore drilling and it will cut gas prices," it sounds like it makes sense, especially when gas is more than $4 a gallon. But the facts say otherwise.

“The only way we can achieve energy and climate security in this country is to reduce our dependence on oil.

“Unfortunately, President Bush and Sen. John McCain are trying to sell us on the oil companies' old argument that repealing the 27-year old moratorium on drilling in protected areas offshore will lower gas prices. Americans need to put this tired debate to rest. Our security -- both here at home and abroad -- depends on it.

“First, the oil companies in this country now hold 7,000 leases to drill offshore, yet only 20 percent of those leases are producing oil. That is 68 million acres for which they already have the rights to drill. Nearly 80 percent of our offshore oil is already available for leasing -- approximately 54 billion barrels total. They could be drilling in these areas, but they are not.”

http://biden.senate.gov/press/opeds/oped/?id=b8a133b0-6b34-4b5a-be39-7f22fb787d1f

Republicans may see the off-shore oil drilling issue as a bludgeon, but it is nothing more than a fart in a windstorm. And, if Democrats can’t expose that for what it is then, frankly, they don’t deserve to be in control of the executive branch.

If this is a state issue then not renewing the ban won't matter since it is the state that issue the licences - or is it the federal government?

The problem is that the American people do not want to change their ways so the easy answer is to have more oil.

We all know how hard it is to eat right and exercise daily so why should we expect drivers/car manufactures/oil companies/everyone with something to lose to change their habits?

...Stan