Question for Renee or Any McCain Supporter

You brought up the question of how does Obama plan to pay for the programs he wants and not raise taxes and I answered on anothe thread. Since McCain said he doesn't want to increase ANYONE's taxes right now, please explain this statement

In last night's debate, John McCain said:

"We can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by building 45 nuclear power plants right away."

To lower oil dependency would require a shift to electric or hybrid cars, with nuclear power providing the electricity. Now, no new nuclear reactors have been built since the 70s and even those utility companies who have filed applications to build 24 new reactors won't be built until 2015 at the earliest and even construction of those may be cancelled due to the state of the economy. For just those 24 reactors, the federal government has promised $13 billion in subsidies to pay for their construction. With no increase in taxes, where does McCain plan to get the money to pay for not only the 24 proposed reactors, but also for the 21 additional reactors? (estimate another $11 billion)? or maybe even more since they now cost $9 billion each.

CinC wrote:

You brought up the question of how does Obama plan to pay for the programs he wants and not raise taxes and I answered on anothe thread. Since McCain said he doesn't want to increase ANYONE's taxes right now, please explain this statement

In last night's debate, John McCain said:

"We can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by building 45 nuclear power plants right away."

To lower oil dependency would require a shift to electric or hybrid cars, with nuclear power providing the electricity. Now, no new nuclear reactors have been built since the 70s and even those utility companies who have filed applications to build 24 new reactors won't be built until 2015 at the earliest and even construction of those may be cancelled due to the state of the economy. For just those 24 reactors, the federal government has promised $13 billion in subsidies to pay for their construction. With no increase in taxes, where does McCain plan to get the money to pay for not only the 24 proposed reactors, but also for the 21 additional reactors? (estimate another $11 billion)? or maybe even more since they now cost $9 billion each.

This is a really good question, Cincy, and I don't want you to think I'm ignoring it. I'm doing some research on where our oil production is most used (much of our oil is used to produce electricity, not just for fuels; this is one area where nuclear technology can immediately impact for the better). I also am researching McCain's Lexington Project to see where these numbers fit in. So I will get back to you on this, I just don't want to misstate or misrepresent.

I do know that money for this could be obtained from redistribution of the budget. And this brings up another question, but I'm going to ask it under a new post.

Cincy and Renee,
I was recently talking to a group of Americans who said that there was an huge amount of untapped oil in 2 areas in the States that so far was not available for development because of gov't environmental restraints. Under the Dakotas and off shore Florida. The off shore Florida they said was being accessed by the Chinese and other countries through diagonal drilling.

I am not suggesting I support more oil drilling and refining etc - actually I totally support the opposite but is this true? And have either Obama or McCain addressed this?

Let's start with Florida.

Although formerly a long an opponent of offshore drilling, Obama has now adopted a bipartisan energy plan that would permit oil drilling within 50 miles of Florida's west coast to break the partisan impasse over energy policy that was stalling Congress earlier this year. The plan would expand drilling but also set new goals and establish new funding for the use of alternative fuels. At that time, he stated "My attitude is that we can find some sort of compromise. If it is part of an overarching package, then I am not going to be rigid in preventing an energy package that goes forward that is really thoughtful and is going to really solve the problem."

That bill, The New Energy Reform Act of 2008 calls for spending $84-billion over 10 years on research and development of better batteries, fuels and energy-saving technologies and includes tax incentives for people who buy hybrid and alternative-fuel cars and trucks. Funding would come largely from the royalties energy companies pay the government for the right to drill in federal waters, as well as closing loopholes and repealing tax breaks for oil and gas companies worth some $30-billion. The bill doesn't address issues that have doomed past compromise attempts. Although the Southeast could be opened for drilling, the plan doesn't mention California, where political opposition remains firm. It doesn't mention drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, another traditional flash point. Nor would it clamp down on energy speculators, which some experts believe have helped drive rising oil prices. In recent months, congressional Democrats have been trying, unsuccessfully, to pass a bill that would more closely regulate the practice. But the package does include Florida.

Under the proposal, drilling for oil and natural gas would be permitted as close as 50 miles from Florida's west coast, which is currently protected by a 2006 ban on drilling within about 230 miles of Tampa Bay and 125 miles from the Panhandle. Florida's east coast would be exempt. Drilling also would be allowed 50 miles off the coasts of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia if their legislatures opt to allow it. Florida would have no say in the matter, however, because Senate advocates believe the eastern Gulf of Mexico offers the best chance to get more oil and natural gas to market quickly.

There are repercussions of drilling 50 miles off the Florida coast. One of them affects the US military because the largest testing and training area for the Department of Defense in the world is the Gulf of Mexico off of Florida.. Also a U.S. Energy Department study has found it will take years before gas and oil from the eastern gulf would come online, and the impact on prices would likely be negligible.

Obama continues to state what he has always said.... that "we are not going to drill our way out of this problem. ... We have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves; we use 25 percent of the world's oil."

As I understand it, McCain supports offshore drilling just about everywhere. In September, he stated that based on briefings he received from “the oil producers,” “There are some instances [that] within a matter of months they could be getting additional oil. In some cases, it would be a matter of a year. In some cases it could take longer than that, depending on the location and whether you use existing rigs or you have to install new rigs, but there’s abundant resources in the view of the people who are in the business that could be exploited within a period of months.”

The prospect of significant new petroleum resources that could be available so soon would be excellent news—aside from the obvious impact of burning still more oil—if only what the senator said was true.

But what he said actually made no sense whatsoever, as a statement about the future development of domestic oil, the alleged need to increase drilling off our coasts or the resources that such drilling might produce. It may be true that “existing rigs” could produce additional barrels of domestic oil immediately, whether on land or in the ocean, as McCain suggests. If so, he might want to ask his friends in the oil business why those rigs aren’t producing more oil now, at prices above $120 a barrel. An existing rig by definition is a rig that is operating legally on property already leased for exploration—and can produce oil unencumbered by any environmental constraints on drilling. In case McCain doesn’t understand, an existing rig is where someone has already drilled a well.
Where companies would have to install new rigs, the question is whether a lease already exists or whether the government would have to grant a new lease. New drilling on the outer continental shelf would mean new leases that are now illegal. But nearly 75 percent of the existing leases on federal lands held by petroleum companies are currently producing no oil. Those companies today hold nearly 30 million acres dormant. Nobody in the federal government even knows whether any exploration has taken place over the past decade.

Perhaps McCain should ask his friends in the industry why they aren’t exploring or producing on the leases they already control. A truthful answer would be that those leases count as financial assets whether productive or not—and adding to them enhances an oil firm’s bottom line.

The senator should also ask an oil company executive to step forward and explain how any new offshore oil lease can produce petroleum within the next few months or even a year. If that is possible, then the Department of Energy analysis of future domestic oil production is scandalously wrong.

The department’s Energy Information Agency released a study last year predicting that granting access to new offshore leases would not begin to produce any actual oil until around 2020, and would have no “significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030,” if ever.

As the Republican presidential nominee, McCain suddenly seems eager to exploit voter discontent over high gasoline prices to promote offshore drilling. He may even think he can ride the energy crisis into the White House. Voters may or may not believe the senator’s silly claims about his “briefings” from oilmen, which mainly seem to have involved handing over a fat check. But so far the only beneficiary of his offshore drilling offensive is the McCain presidential war chest. The Washington Post recently reported that the oil industry “gushed money after [his] reversal on oil drilling."

The oilmen never gave him that kind of money when he talked straight.

As for drilling in the Dakotas, Obama has stated he sees the Bakken oil formation as an important resource for helping fill national energy needs. He stated the oil boom in ND right now is very important to their local economy. Having been there recently, I can tell ya, they need a boost.

I'm not gonna research McCain on that one...I'll let his people do it.

Thank you Cincy - that was a very comprehensible and easy to understand answer. It is very interesting to note how interested we Canadians are in this election - this is the most interested ever - not just for how your new president will impact Canada- but also because there are some very real "personalities". I know I can't speak for all Canadians but within my circle of friends it is amazing how we try to follow what is happening.

However, there still is only a fraction of the information avaialbe to us that you all get unless one goes to do research online. Even the debates seem somewhat fractured to me because of this. So thanks for the insight. I wish you guys good luck. Scary times.