RALEIGH, N.C. – A leader of a General Assembly panel examining energy exploration off the North Carolina coast says the state should consider working with neighbors to ensure its interests are protected.

Doug Rader with the Environmental Defense Fund in Raleigh said Wednesday that North Carolina needs to watch potential oil and natural gas drilling or alternative energy initatives off the coasts of Virginia or South Carolina.

A oil and gas lease sale off the Virginia coast is scheduled early next decade. Virginia’s state geologist told the offshore energy advisory panel two potential wind energy projects also are being discussed.

Rader said it would be unfortunate if North Carolina has no say about projects that could affect negatively the North Carolina coast, or can’t share in profits in nearby ventures.

WILMINGTON, N.C. – A North Carolina panel exploring energy available off the state’s coast hears from the public about the choices ahead.

The Offshore Energy Exploration Study Committee meets on Tuesday in Wilmington. The panel created by the General Assembly earlier this year holds a public comment session on the University of North Carolina at Wilmington campus.

The committee’s interim report filed in May said there may be a significant amount of oil and gas deposits in federal waters under the Outer Continental Shelf off North Carolina.

The panel said North Carolina also could produce a signficant part of its energy by harnassing offshore wind, especially north of Cape Hatteras.

The committee’s final recommendations are due next May.

RALEIGH, N.C. – Results of the latest Civitas Institute poll reveal strong support remains among registered voters for off-shore drilling and energy exploration despite a welcomed decline in the retail price of refined gasoline products since late 2008.

More than 71 percent of 600 respondents to the live-caller poll indicated they would allow domestic energy exploration somewhere off of the coast of North Carolina today.  Only 21.8 percent answered they would not allow drilling anywhere off the coast and 6.3 percent refused the question or were unaware.

“In the face of lower demand for gasoline and lower pump prices, voters over the past eleven months have actually increased their support for off-shore drilling,” said Francis De Luca, executive director of the Civitas Institute.

Reflecting on a similar question asked in Civitas’ June 2008 poll, 68 percent of respondents supported off-shore drilling.  Voter opposition to domestic energy exploration off the state coast totaled 20 percent last summer with 11 percent having no opinion.

“It appears voters overwhelmingly support drilling off the coast, whether it is a plurality that would allow it within sight of land or huge majorities allowing it somewhere off the coast,” said De Luca.  “Voters understand that offshore drilling will create jobs in the state and help the overall economic situation.”

Full text of questions:

When it comes to the issue of drilling for oil and natural gas off the coast of North Carolina, which of the following comes closest to your own personal opinion?

1.       Drilling for oil and natural gas should be allowed anywhere off…

2.       Drilling for oil and natural gas should only be allowed off the coast of North Carolina if it is out of sight from the shore. Or,

3.       Drilling for oil and natural gas should not be allowed at all off the coast of North Carolina.

U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan said she is not opposed to drilling for oil or natural gas off the North Carolina coast if that is what the state decides to do.

Winston-Salem Journal Editorial

The Interior Department has issued a detailed proposal for oil and gas drilling off both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts – including the fragile, already-threatened North Carolina coast. President Obama should scrap the whole plan and concentrate on making the country more energy independent, a theme he stressed again Monday. State leaders should let him know just how bad drilling would be for North Carolina.

There’s been talk for years about drilling off the North Carolina coast. Most of the state’s top leaders have resisted such proposals, fearing that drilling could hurt the tourism this state increasingly depends upon.

But when gas prices shot up to record highs last year, some of our elected leaders, like their counterparts nationwide, relaxed their resistance.

The Interior Department issued its proposal in the last days of the Bush administration, which had pushed for more drilling off America’s coasts. The draft plan would allow drilling from New England to Florida and off the California coast, The Associated Press reported last week. These areas were recently declared off limits by Congress.

The N.C. legislature announced last week the formation of a committee to study the effects of drilling off our coast. We can’t imagine a scenario in which the economic benefits of such a plan could outweigh the damage to the environment and scenery – and, consequently, tourism. Overdevelopment has already done enough damage.

Drilling rigs would require nearby refineries and storage facilities, and create lots of traffic between the rigs and refineries. The rigs would threaten the environment, especially if one was knocked over in a hurricane.

With our Outer Banks jutting right out into the path of so many storms, that danger would be very real.
Finally, it’s estimated that more drilling off American shores wouldn’t produce enough oil to fuel our cars for any significant length of time. The time, effort and money for more drilling would be much better spent developing mass-transportation systems, alternative-energy programs and new fuels for cars. That strategy could finally break our addiction to oil, whether foreign or domestic.

By all indications, the Obama administration will be more prudent about the use of precious natural resources than the Bush administration. Ken Salazar, the new Interior secretary, indicated to The Associated Press last week that he likely will be receptive to scaling back his department’s proposal for more oil drilling.
Our elected leaders should let Salazar and the president know that oil drilling off North Carolina is a bad idea.

RALEIGH, N.C. – North Carolina legislative leaders will form a committee to study whether offshore drilling is feasible off the coast.
 
Senate leader Marc Basnight said Thursday he remains opposed to drilling to explore for oil and natural gas reserves. Basnight is a powerful Democrat from coastal Dare County.

But Basnight and House Speaker Joe Hackney have agreed to create a legislative panel to look at environmental concerns and what the state can do proactively on the matter.

Congress has allowed a moratorium on drilling to expire. The federal government has since started taking public comment on drilling off Virginia’s coast.

Gov.-elect Beverly Perdue has been opposed to drilling. But her campaign said she would be open to the idea if a team of scientists said it was safe.

The Associated Builders and Contractors is praising U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole’s stance on drilling.

WASHINGTON – Although Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire at the end of last month, don’t expect to see oil rigs along the coast anytime soon.

Even without the ban, another federal law prevents oil companies from leasing Atlantic drilling sites from the government for at least two years. And after the leases are sold, it likely will take another five to 10 years before oil production begins.

“The good news, from our perspective, is there won’t be rigs out there in a week,” said Nat Mund, legislative director of the Washington office of the Southern Environmental Law Center, one of dozens of environmental groups that oppose offshore drilling.

“There’s a multi-step process they have to go through – both the oil companies and the government – before drilling can begin,” he said.

And long before that process ends, both industry and environmental groups say they expect the Democratic-controlled Congress to revisit the drilling ban decision. Early next year, Congress could reinstate the ban or, more likely, allow some drilling while restricting most oil production within sight of the shore.

During intense, pre-election debate over energy policy last month, Democratic leaders in the House dropped their longstanding opposition to offshore drilling.

They approved an energy package that would have allowed oil companies to drill for oil and natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf more than 50 miles from the coast, as long as adjacent states approved.

That bill – and other similar drilling proposals – stalled in the Senate, after lawmakers said that intense pre-election partisanship made it impossible to reach a compromise.

For decades, several federal laws have banned oil drilling in the Atlantic.

In spending bills since 1981, Congress has prohibited the government from spending any money to lease offshore sites to oil companies – effectively banning the practice. And in 1990, President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order that more explicitly blocked Atlantic drilling, a move upheld by President Clinton.

This summer, President Bush overturned the executive ban passed by his father. And late last month, Congress passed a spending bill that, for the first time in decades, did not include the ban on spending money to lease offshore sites in the Atlantic.

Republicans have pushed to end the ban, suggesting that doing so would provide an immediate cure for high gas prices. But federal officials who oversee oil production say two roadblocks make that unlikely, at least in the near term.

Even with the congressional and executive bans gone, another federal rule prevents the government from leasing areas not included in a five-year leasing plan produced by the Minerals Management Service. That federal agency oversees oil leases.

The current five-year plan does not include sites off the coast of North Carolina. Though the agency is currently drafting a new plan that could open up waters off the state’s coast, it will not be finished until mid-2010 at the earliest.

Another roadblock: Atlantic states still lack most of the necessary infrastructure to support oil production.

“The pipelines and receiving facilities on shore – none of which exist as this time – would need to be built,” said Nicholas Pardi, a spokesman for the Minerals Management Service.

It typically takes eight years for an oil company to begin production after acquiring a lease, Pardi said.

“There is a significant amount of environmental study that needs to be done,” before production can begin. “But there are so many variables involved, it’s hard to say how long it would actually take.”

WASHINGTON – Republican John McCain expressed incredulity in the presidential debate Tuesday that Democrat Barack Obama would tip off the enemy by saying publicly that he’d attack al-Qaida in Pakistan under certain conditions. “Remarkable,” McCain said during the presidential debate, meaning remarkably irresponsible.

Lost in his withering criticism: McCain took the same position as Obama, a year ago, when he said, “Sure. We have to,” when asked if he’d go after Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

Both candidates stretched facts, sometimes past the breaking point, as they addressed the financial crisis and misrepresented each other’s position on health care during their second presidential debate.

One of the night’s sharpest exchanges was over what should be done if the U.S. knew the whereabouts of bin Laden and his terrorists in sovereign Pakistan, and Pakistani officials were unable or unwilling to strike. Obama repeated that he’d attack across the border in that instance.

“Sen. Obama likes to talk loudly,’ McCain said in response. “In fact, he said he wants to announce that he’s going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable.”

McCain went on: “I’m not going to telegraph my punches, which is what Sen. Obama did. And I’m going to act responsibly, as I have acted responsibly throughout my military career and throughout my
career in the United States Senate.”

In an October 2007 interview with Military Times, however, McCain’s position was indistinguishable from Obama’s.

Asked if “you’d go get him” if U.S. forces had a fix on bin Laden in Pakistan, McCain said: “Sure. Sure. We have to, and I’m sure that after the initial flurry, that whoever our friends are, wherever he is, would be relieved because, as I mentioned to you before, he’s still very effective in the world, very, very effective.”

McCain broadened that threat to say he’d target the Taliban operating in Pakistan, too: “I think that if we knew of al-Qaida – more specifically Taliban, it’s mainly Taliban that are operating in these places – that we have to do what’s necessary. We don’t have to advertise it. We don’t have to embarrass or humiliate the Pakistani government.”

Also in the debate:

OBAMA: Said McCain’s proposal to give people a tax credit in exchange for treating employers’ health insurance contributions as taxable wages amounts to “what one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away.”

THE FACTS: Obama’s suggestion that McCain’s health care plan is a wash for families is misleading. McCain offers families a $5,000 tax credit to help them buy health insurance. The corresponding increase in taxable wages would result in a much smaller cost than the value of the tax credit, at least at first. Over time, the value of the tax credit may diminish as premiums rise. However, the Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain’s plan would increase the federal deficit by $1.3 trillion over 10 years – mainly because it would lead to less tax revenue coming in, meaning it is a true tax break overall.
      —

McCAIN: Said he would provide a $5,000 refundable tax credit for families to buy health insurance “rather than mandates or fines for small businesses as Sen. Obama’s plan calls for.”

THE FACTS: Obama’s health care plan does not impose mandates or fines on small business. He would provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit of up to 50 percent on health premiums paid on behalf of their employees. Also, large employers that do not offer meaningful coverage or contribute to the cost of coverage would be required to pay a percentage of payroll toward the costs of a public insurance plan. But small businesses would be exempt from that requirement.
      —

OBAMA: “Actually I’m cutting more than I’m spending so that it will be a net spending cut.”
 
THE FACTS: Obama has many ambitious plans to spend more taxpayer dollars on a variety of federal programs, including clean energy technologies and job training. He’s said he’ll cut pork-barrel programs and the costs of the war in Iraq to pay for it – as well as raise taxes on the wealthy – but the specifics of his new spending plans greatly outweigh the few spending cuts he’s identified.
      —
 
McCAIN: Said one way out of the financial crisis is to “stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t like us.”

THE FACTS: Although he didn’t spell it out, he was referring – as he has in the past – to purchases of oil from countries hostile to the U.S. The figure is inflated and misleading. The U.S. is not spending nearly that much on oil imports and roughly one-third of what it does spend goes to friendly countries such as Canada, Mexico and Britain.
      —

OBAMA: Blamed some of the problem of terrorism in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region on Bush administration policy in Pakistan, saying “We can’t coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he’s making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants.”
 
THE FACTS: Obama oversimplifies ex-President Pervez Musharraf’s approach to making peace deals. In fact, the U.S.-backed Musharraf focused more heavily on military action, launching blistering attacks on the militants at times and negotiating peace deals with them at others. Obama also ignores the fact that Pakistan’s newly elected civilian government, also U.S.-supported, is seeking the same kind of peace deals and has stepped back from heavy-handed tactics that were pursued by the Musharraf government.
      —

McCAIN: Said Obama had voted for tax increases “94 times.”

THE FACTS: This inflated count, heard before, includes repetitive votes as well as votes to cut taxes for the middle class while raising them on the rich. An analysis by factcheck.org found that 23 of the votes were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all, seven were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, 11 would have increased taxes on only those making more than $1 million a year.
      —

OBAMA: “I believe this is a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years, strongly promoted by President Bush and supported by Sen. McCain, that essentially said that we should strip away regulations, consumer protections, let the market run wild, and prosperity would rain down on all of us.”

THE FACTS: McCain has indeed favored less regulation over the years but supported tighter rules and accountability on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years before the start of a financial crisis prompted in part by those giant mortgage underwriters. Obama was not a leader in that unsuccessful effort. Some of the current problems can be traced to legislation passed in 1999 that lifted many regulations over the financial industry. That deregulation was championed by then-Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, a McCain supporter, but also by President Clinton, who signed the legislation, and by former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, now a top Obama economic adviser.
      —

MCAIN: “Oil drilling offshore now is vital so we can bridge the gap between imported oil … and it will reduce the price of a barrel of oil. … We’ve got to drill offshore and do it now.”

THE FACTS: The government estimates that opening the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and eastern Gulf of Mexico to drilling “will not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.” Even then, it would only increase domestic oil production by 3 percent.