On ABC's This Week, Stephanopoulos let DeLay spin away on oil production
SUMMARY: On ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos failed to correct a series of misleading statements by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) concerning the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and potential sources of oil off the coastal United States.
During an interview with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) on the May 7 broadcast of ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos failed to correct a series of misleading statements by DeLay concerning the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and potential sources of oil off the coastal United States. DeLay claimed that "Democrats have stopped us from developing American oil and American gas in this country. They've stopped us from drilling in Alaska, off the offshore of Florida and California. ... If President Clinton had signed drilling in ANWR back in the '90s, we would be enjoying a million barrels a day more today, and that would have an impact on gas prices." Contrary to DeLay's claim, the 2006 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) report released in February by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) concluded that, if ANWR had been opened for development in 2005, daily production would have peaked at 780,000 barrels per day in 2024, falling to 650,000 barrels per day by 2030. In addition, a Department of Energy study conducted by EIA found that oil production in ANWR would have a relatively insignificant impact upon crude oil prices. The report concluded that drilling in ANWR would reduce oil prices by 30 to 50 cents per barrel by 2025, "relative to a projected 2025 world oil price of $27 per barrel" The report also noted that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) "could countermand any potential price impact of ANWR coastal plain production by reducing its exports by an equal amount."
Further, contrary to DeLay's claim that Democrats were responsible for blocking drilling off the coast of Florida, The Washington Post reported on May 30, 2002, that it was the Bush administration that blocked drilling there. The administration first proposed drilling in 2001 but then reversed course after Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), who ran for re-election in 2002, objected:
Last year, [then-Interior Secretary Gail] Norton floated a proposal -- developed in the Clinton administration -- to open 6 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas leasing. But after Gov. Bush objected, she scaled back the plan to forestall drilling within 100 miles of the Florida coast. The exception was the Destin Dome area off Pensacola, where Chevron, Conoco and Murphy Oil were in litigation over leases approved 16 years ago. Under yesterday's deal, the companies will relinquish seven of their nine leases and suspend the other two until at least 2012.
The Washington Post article also reported that according to "several environmental activists ... President Bush had been far less eager to block drilling in states where his brother isn't governor."
From the May 7 broadcast of ABC's This Week:
STEPHANOPOULOS: The president is talking now about tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, investigating price gouging by oil companies, maybe raising fuel efficiency standards. Do you think that's the right approach?
DELAY: I mean, I think he's talking about more than just that. I don't think either of those will have an impact on lowering demand or, or increasing supply. We are -- we are paying the price of Democrat policies. The Democrats have stopped us from developing American oil and American gas in this country. They've stopped us from drilling in Alaska, off the offshore of Florida and California, the huge reserves of oil shell and natural gas in the West. They stopped it. If President Clinton had signed drilling in ANWR back in the '90s, we would be enjoying a million barrels a day more today, and that would have an impact on gas prices.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Relatively small, but you are -- clearly are paying a price also with your base right now. And I want to show you --
DELAY: It's not relatively small. A million barrels a day is pretty significant. It's exactly what we're losing in the Middle East.
It's exactly what we're losing in the Middle East.
No, dumbass. What we're losing in the Middle East is credibility, the moral high-ground, and whatever level of security we had before we went in there.
...we're losing limbs, lives and money as well in the middle east. Plus we are killing lots of people and destroying Iraq too. Oh well, at least our country is good at something.
Did anyone else notice that Delay look extra pasty and sweaty. Maybe it's finally sinking in that his time is over. He can make his money off lobbying but his power is GONE.
Everything is dems fault. Eventhough they control no branch of government. It's as shameful as Hannity blaming liberal democrats for the near historic-high gas prices. WTF!?
Did anyone here catch 60 Minutes this past Sunday? They did a segment called : The Ethanol Solution
Here's the website&story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/04/60minutes/main1588659.shtml
Forget ANWR, forget drilling off shore, forget the Middle East!! We wouldn't NEED them IF we followed Brazil's lead.
We've got more corn than anyone (i think). If ethanol ends up replacing oil....then OPEC becomes dependent upon US!
which has far better yield and requires much less energy input than does corn. Depending on who you talk to, it takes more or less a gallon on fossil fuel to make a gallon of ethanol, but in terms of energy a gallon of fossil fuel has 1.5 times the energy of ethanol.
Also, to meet the U.S. energy demand, all of the U.S. land would need to be dedicated to corn growing.
Unless technology improves, ethanol is little more than a taxpayer-subsidized way of disposing of our overproduction of corn.
#1 What makes you think the technology won't improve if we put our (the US's) collective ingenuity to it.
#2 You are wrong. the USDA in 2005 found that ethanol produced 67% more energy than produce it. So, what exactly was your objection again?
I'm sure they are not influenced by the corn lobby, heheh.
There's a good page with pro and con here: [link to freeenergynews.com]
The energy yield is not the only factor. Corn growing on a massive scale means heavy use of fertilizers that damage the environment.
I'm not opposed to ethanol, it just seems clear there are better crops to use in its production, but it means the government must go against the wishes of powerful lobbies.
Why is any media talking head asking this vile little clown about ANYTHING other than his legal troubles, Jack Abramoff, & the corruption scandals that swirl around his bloated head? Why the free pass? Are the opinions of a disgraced ex-speaker really relavent to any other issues facing us today?
And then only to let him get away with spewing out a rancid load of Repug misinformation. Stephanopoulos has become such a tool!
Tom Delay has no business criticizing the dems for anything with his record of debauchery. Stephenopolis should have corrected him. I think its downright scandalous that the press does not do more to denounce the slime that the republicans spew.