Pity poor Leroy Vetsch of Brewster, who seems to be the treasurer of the Nobles County Republican Party*
Today, he had a letter published in the Worthington Globe. It reads:
Why did Congressman Tim Walz vote against energy development off the continental shelf of the United States? H.R. 3089, the “No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007,” failed to pass on a vote of 226 to 183.
If China can drill for oil near the continental shelf of Florida, why can’t our country allow it? Seventeen billion barrels of oil would certainly come in handy right now while we continue to research and develop alternative sources of energy.
Yes, a respected member of the community repeats the false urban legend about the Chinese drilling for oil off the Florida coast. Readers may recall that we covered this--and endorsed GOP candidate Brian Davis's role in repeating the misinformation--on Saturday.
Here are the pertinent facts:
In Chinese oil drilling off Florida coast? 'Akin to urban legend', senator says, by McClatchy Washington Bureau reporters Erika Bolstad and Kevin G. Hall wrote
As Congress has debated energy policy over the past several days, an unusual argument keeps surfacing in support of drilling off the U.S. coastline and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Why, ask some Republicans, should the United States be thwarted from drilling in its own territory when just 50 miles off the Florida coastline the Chinese government is drilling for oil under Cuban leases?
Yet no one can prove that the Chinese are drilling anywhere off Cuba's shoreline. The China-Cuba connection is "akin to urban legend," said Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida who opposes drilling off the coast of his state but who backs exploration in ANWR.
"China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters, period," said Jorge Pinon, an energy fellow with the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami and an expert in oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. Martinez cited Pinon's research when he took to the Senate floor Wednesday to set the record straight.
Even so, the Chinese-drilling-in-Cuba legend has gained momentum and has been swept up in Republican arguments to open up more U.S. territory to domestic production. . . .
The AP story reports more facts in Cheney oil comment attacked:
Jorge Pinon, a senior energy fellow at the University of Miami specializing in Latin America, said Cuba has awarded offshore oil leases, or concessionary blocs, in its offshore waters to six oil companies — none of them Chinese — and soon may announce an agreement with Brazil's state oil company, Petrobras.
"But no one is currently drilling in any of those concessions," said Pinon in a telephone interview. Pinon, who supports drilling in the eastern Gulf and believes it can be done without hurting the environment, said China is being raised as an unnecessary "boogeyman" by drilling proponents.
So Vetsch repeats this fear-mongering talking point to slam Walz. Classy. But this isn't the first time we've seen First District conservatives and Republicans reach for urban legends rather than facts to supposedly support their points. It doesn't. It makes them look like fools. (Lately, they've been defending themselves by pointing to a handful of 2006 articles that mention Cuban plans to possibly lease to Chinese concerns, but none reports a done deal. It's "boogeyman" stuff).
We have more about that "No More Excuses" act later in the day. For now, we're thinking of it as the "No Excuse for This Energy Act" given some of the handouts it contains for oil and gas companies. For now, check out the discussions at News Cut and Across the Great Divide, prompted by Congresswoman Bachmann's press conference in which she promised $2 gas in four years.
And read about a Democratic alternative: The Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008 (H.R. 6251). From the House Natural Resources committee:
. . .a direct response to the facts outlined in the recent House Natural Resources Committee Majority Staff report, "The Truth About America's Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits", that illustrate how energy companies are not using the federal lands and waters that are already open to drilling. The legislation is co-sponsored by Reps. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Ed Markey (D-MA), and John Yarmuth (D-KY).
The 68 million acres of leased but inactive federal land have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. This would nearly double total U.S. oil production, and increase natural gas production by 75 percent. It would also cut U.S. oil imports by more than one-third, reducing America's dependency on foreign oil.
The Rahall bill would force oil and gas companies to either produce or give up federal onshore and offshore leases they are stockpiling by barring the companies from obtaining any more leases unless they can demonstrate that they are producing oil and gas, or are diligently developing the leases they already hold, during the initial term of the leases.
Coal companies, which are issued leases for 20-year terms, are required, as a result of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 to show that they are diligently developing their leases during the initial lease term. The law was enacted in an effort to end rampant speculation on federal coal as a result of the energy crises of the 1970's.
Oil and gas companies, however, are not required to demonstrate diligent development. Because of this, oil and gas companies have been allowed to stockpile leases in a non-producing status, while leaving millions of acres of leased land untouched. The Rahall legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to define what constitutes diligent development for oil and gas leases. . . . .
Short skinny: Have the oil and gas companies drill using the leases and permits they already hold. We'd looked at this issue last week.
*looks like they haven't updated that web page for a bit. Elaine Harder retired from the Minnesota House after the 2004 session, and Alex Frick challenged Senator Vickerman in 2002.
The LTE states:
H.R. 3089, the “No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007,” failed to pass on a vote of 226 to 183.
The hyperlink cited in your commentary goes to the legislation. That bill has never been voted on.
An urban legend may imply believability, yet the LTE writer is building his legend on NO FACTS.
Ollie Ox: He mistakes discharge petition for a vote, if I understand this correctly.
Posted by: MinnesotaCentral | June 17, 2008 at 09:51 AM