Monday, June 23, 2008


Several have recently asked how Daily Sprawl feels about the latest oil drilling political happenings. The answer is a big indifferent yawn but let's first recap.

McCain and several other elected officials have proposed that States be given authority to decide whether to approve oil drilling off their shores (note: contrary to the intellectually-lazy rantings of sportscasters turned cable t.v. commentators like Keith Olbermann, the issue is not whether Congress should approve such drilling itself but whether it should empower states to do so).

Well, in return, several other elected officials decided that the Talking Point response should be "No way because oil companies are not fully drilling their existing oil leases already. Do that first and then we'll talk."

For the uninformed, that may make sense at first blush. But, for the informed, its a non-starter. Why?

Simple, really. Just because an oil lease exists, doesn't mean that oil does. Indeed, many of the undrilled leases remain undrilled because they have been scouted but no significant oil was found.

Meaning that guys like Rahm Emmanuel are essentially saying that you have to first drill the areas without appreciable oil before states are given the authority to allow drilling in those areas that do.

In other words, just more partisan politics on this nation critical issue.

But, alas, what does Daily Sprawl think?

Again, practically and simply: drill where we believe appreciable deposits of oil exist--whether it is ANWR, the Gulf Coast, or Cheyenne, Wyoming. After all, we will need every drop we can get to aid in the Peak Oil transition. Leaving reserves in the ground--even though they won't themselves solve the issue--is a bad idea because the time will come where we may lack the energy resources to actually go and get that oil at all.

When you consider that petroleum plays a large role in our health care, food sourcing, and other key aspects like shelter, it becomes clear that you can be both anti-sprawl and pro-drilling.

In fact, not just "can be" but "should be".